The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: ericrugiero on February 25, 2019, 01:15:15 PM

Title: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 25, 2019, 01:15:15 PM
First of all, this post is not intended to start a fight.  There have been several threads that have made me want to respond with my views (but I have refrained so that the thread wasn't sidetracked.)  Please read this and understand that I'm wanting open and honest communication without fighting or being nasty to each other. 

In reading most of the threads around here, it seems like most of the members lean to the left both politically and socially.  I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum.  Comments are made with assumptions about conservatives that make me defensive whether I should be or not.  For example, in a recent thread there was a reference to someone who watched fox news and that it was not surprising that this viewer made racist comments.  Admittedly, there are conservatives who are racists but there are also liberals who are racists.  It seems like racism has become a default accusation if you disagree with someone.  (for example, if you don't like ILLEGAL immigration, you must be racist)  In my experience, most conservatives are not opposed to immigration, they just want it done legally by people who are going to follow our laws.  Breaking into the country illegally isn't a good start to following the laws of our country.  I'm not a Trump fan or a big proponent of building a wall.  But, I do agree we have a big issue with border security which needs to be solved.  That has nothing to do with the race of the people coming through our Southern border.  It has everything to do with them following our laws and being productive citizens (as well as restricting illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc).  Why can't we have productive discussions about this without assuming the worst of others?

Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.  I guess my issue with the comment implying racism (and others supporting it) is that an assumption is being made about conservatives that is not true of the majority of them.  You can watch a tv station or show without agreeing with everything on it.  Also, some things that are labeled "racist" are just things that people disagree with and not real racism.  Our society (both conservative and liberal) tends to assume the worst of people who don't agree with them.  In my experience, most people are liberal or conservative because that's what they legitimately think will be best for people as a whole.  I'd like us as a country to reach the place where we can openly discuss the merits of different beliefs and whether they make sense.  Right now, our media as a whole and many other people are so caught up in trashing Donald Trump and anyone they disagree with that we can't have a reasonable and open discussion without getting mad and defensive.  We should be able to look for the best in people without being so easily offended. 

My concern right now is that we are going the wrong way with racism.  Obama was our first black president which is great (I disagree with many of his policies but I'm glad we had a black president).  But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).  That was a big wasted opportunity, he could have made a big difference in bringing us all together.  Now, we have Trump who spends much of his time fighting with the media and making controversial statements/tweets.  The mainstream media is so upset with him they aren't helping matters (or being objective for the most part).  We have made so much progress as a country that I hate to see us go backwards. 

I'll end my rant here because it's long enough.  For the most part, this community is open minded and accepting.  I occasionally get frustrated with comments in this forum but I'm frequently disappointed with comments from both liberals and conservatives elsewhere who don't seem to be able to see both sides of an issue and make logical arguments for why they believe what they do. So many comments (on facebook, twitter, tv, etc) are inflammatory and lack the logical arguments needed to change anyone's mind. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 01:17:36 PM
I have a shit ton of thoughts on this, but it probably belongs in another sub-forum.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 25, 2019, 01:23:50 PM
I have no problem discussing this, but this should probably be moved to the off topic sub-forum first.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 25, 2019, 01:26:58 PM
Sorry, I guess I put it in the wrong sub-forum.  Mods, would you please move? 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: jpompo on February 25, 2019, 01:30:34 PM
But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).  That was a big wasted opportunity, he could have made a big difference in bringing us all together. 

He really could have, but then he went out and wore a tan suit...
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FINate on February 25, 2019, 01:51:09 PM
Why is the country so polarized? Because people have put their identity in political parties (or, rather, in opposition to whichever party they don't like). Recommended reading: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

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

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

Try being a "moderate" or "independent." Folks in this camp don't necessarily averaging out all opposing ideas to arrive in the middle. Instead, they tend to be unorthodox, supporting and opposing aspects of both parties. It's great fun...my conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal and my liberal friends think I'm a wingnut.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: golden1 on February 25, 2019, 01:55:15 PM
Quote
Obama was our first black president which is great (I disagree with many of his policies but I'm glad we had a black president).  But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).

Yes, because it was his job to make people act less racist....

Please give examples of him being divisive, because, if anything, his entire appeal (refer to the 2004 convention speech about no red states or blue states) was based on the fact that we were all in it together.  One of the first things he did as president was to meet with the leaders of the Republican party in order to attempt to meet in the middle on some issues.  The GOP had something else in mind.  Remember, their #1 priority was to make Obama a "one term president"

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

Back to your original question, which is more interesting, and I think about it a lot. 

"Why does it have to be this way?"  Partly, I think it is because all the incentives are there to make it this way.  People don't vote when they are happy.  People don't buy things, they don't click on news articles about happy people and positive trends.    The media thrives on outrage, on getting people upset.  Politics is the same way.  When you really get people to sit down and talk to each other, without preconceived notions, people agree a lot more than they disagree.   

I also think there are greater forces at work, to some extent.  I think people are deeply wired to be tribal.  They tend to hold opinions that their family and friends hold, and to have a contrary opinion means potentially being ostracized from your peers/social groups.  I think true critical thinking is extremely rare, and that most people who think they are having reasoned opinions are really reasoning after making the choice to have the same opinion that makes them socially comfortable. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 02:03:25 PM
I think I can make a few comments without going out of bounds for the forum, but I guess the mods are the ultimate judge of that. Anyway,

On the left-leaning nature of this forum:

Using the 2016 election as a proxy for where certain demographics land on the political spectrum, college educated voters were 58% more likely to choose the liberal candidate over the conservative candidate. This edge fell to 51% for the 2018 midterm, which was supposedly less contentious. But still, 3:2 more likely to lean left if you have a college degree. Numbers come from Pew Research and are easily Googleable.

Given that FIRE is largely a game played by college educated professionals, it makes sense that left leaners are overrepresented on this forum.

Add on top of that, how important a public option for healthcare is to retiring early. The US public option was largely expanded under the liberal White House/Congress in 2010, and the Republican party spent the next seven years trying to get rid of that legislation while promoting no viable alternative of their own.

On the media:

I largely think the mainstream media does a pretty okay job.I take issue with a few outlets. Namely Fox News and to a lesser extent, CNN.

But by and large, ABC, NBC, NPR, PBS, The Times, and The Post do a good job reporting on things.

I’ve heard the argument that they’re trying to “take down” the current President, but even if you’re a fan of Donald Trump, you would have to see that says incredibly stupid, petty, and offensive things on almost a daily basis. Maybe you or others think it gets too much coverage, but not to cover it would be to normalize it, which would in itself, be an editorial decision.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 25, 2019, 02:14:43 PM
Oh geez. Well, you are going to immediately write off my response as merely being another example of one side attacking another, but I think the honest answer is "because that's what Republicans have drug us down to."

An environment where both sides disagreed with each other but respected each other is more-or-less what we used to have before "One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty" Newt Gingrich (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/) came to power and transformed the Republican Party in his own image. And it's only been downhill from there, because if one side is playing dirty and the other isn't they will win. So the other side has to start playing dirty too, and it only descends further.

I think it's very interesting that you accuse Obama of being "divisive", because I can't think of any justification for that. He was willing to point out real problems of racism and unequal treatment by police and other similar issues sure, but he did not create them. Obama was *constantly* calling for unity and cooperation.

Meanwhile the Republican Senate that had openly vowed to block every single thing he did (regardless of its merit). Meanwhile Republican Conspiracy theorists (including Trump himself) were claiming he was born in Kenya, or was an Atheist, or was a Muslim, or was a Socialist, or was going to seize power and become the American Dictator after his second term was up. And then the conservatives elect Trump, and Obama was the racially divisive one?!

These were all positions that Fox News repeated, if not originated. The Fox News that intentionally mixes its "news" programs / articles with its "opinion" programs / artices, making it extremely difficult for casual viewers to know which is which. Fox News which is actually leaves you less informed about current issues that watching no news at all (https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5). Fox news which intends so explicitly as you say to pander to conservatives. Not to be accurate, not to stand strongly for the Truth, to feed conservatives what they want to hear. And that of course enters its own feedback loop, since only conservatives watch Fox, Fox can't/won't say anything to make them mad, both in terms of editorial spin and also by their choice of what they choose to cover and what they ignore. Since Fox is only saying things that affirm their already-held beliefs, conservatives drift farther from neutral reality and the cycle repeats.

Social media in general is helping the divisiveness along for two reasons. First, obviously, it's impossible to have reasoned discussions about complicated over short-form text like tweets or status updates. The only thing you can hope to get out of that is to hype up people already on your side, and so that's what rises to the top. The other thing that happens which is a serious issue and may literally lead to the downfall of society, is that people tend to self-select themselves into other groups of people that are like them. In the real world that's no so much an issue, you are of course going to mostly only meet people who live near you but that's going to include a wide range of people. But on Facebook you suddenly can find a group that caters to exactly your beliefs, and surround yourself in an echo chamber that only reinforces what you want to hear. That's why we now see the rise of anti-vaxxers and the like, but it applies to political propaganda and partisan politics too. Add to that mix bad actors like Russia who we know to be intentionally pumping divisive rhetoric and propaganda in an effort to destabilize the country and you have a bad mix with no obvious solution.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 02:21:18 PM
Further commentary on the media:

If you get your news free (and it's not publicly funded), it's probably bad. Think the links that your uncle shares on Facebook.

If you pay for your news, but it comes bundled with Disney Channel, HGTV, and ESPN*, chances are your news is going to share a lot more in common with "House Hunters" than it is with your local paper.

Paid newspaper subscriptions are still the best source of news in my opinion. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal charge $100+ a year. You cannot pay for a subscription to Brietbart, the Huffington Post, or the Washington Times. These are rags. They make money by keeping you emotional enough to turn the page/keep clicking so that you view more ads.

If you don't have the money to pay for news, publicly funded options like NPR and PBS are an excellent alternative.

*As an aside, this same commentary applies to sports as well. If you want to know which offensive lineman grades out the best in the upcoming draft, you pay for a subscription to ProFootballFocus. If you want to watch Skip and Stephen A. yell over eachother about Todd McShay's 38th Mock Draft, watch ESPN.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 02:22:48 PM
It's great fun...my conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal and my liberal friends think I'm a wingnut.
...even if you’re a fan of Donald Trump, you would have to see that says incredibly stupid, petty, and offensive things on almost a daily basis.
+1 to both.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: wageslave23 on February 25, 2019, 02:38:06 PM
Not going to dive into specific issues for obvious reasons.  But in general, the reason politics is so divisive is ignorance.  It is much easier to say that my views mostly align with one party so instead of researching every issue, I will just default to the party view.  Then you subconsciously seek validation of your views by seeking like minded people which further solidifies your convictions.  Its crazy to think that your individual views would independently just happen to be exactly what another person or group believes in every situation.  But it takes a lot of work to think independently and most people are too lazy.  On any divisive issue, I try to understand where the other side is coming from by assuming they have a logical reason for having the opposing viewpoint.  I also assume that I am missing something until I do understand it.  That is very rare.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 25, 2019, 02:54:20 PM
Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.

This is an interesting statement to make.

Why do you believe that it's important for a conservative to get different news than everyone else?




some things that are labeled "racist" are just things that people disagree with and not real racism

Can you explain (maybe with some examples) exactly what is and is not real racism?

Like, if I make a list:
- Paying someone less because of their race
- Wearing blackface at a party
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
- Marching in street carrying a Nazi flag, shouting that Jews and blacks must die
- Calling Mexican immigrants rapists, when crimes committed by immigrants are significantly lower than those committed by natural born Americans
- Calling your local (all white) high school sports team 'The Indians' and performing a tomahawk chop in the crowd while attending the game
- Crossing the street because you see a black guy
- Implementing laws that make it harder for minorities to vote
- Burning a cross on your lawn
- Repeatedly calling someone of Native ancestry 'Pocahontas', after being asked to stop by multiple native american groups
- Flying a confederate flag in front of your house
- Implementing drug laws and procedures that disproportionately impact people of color
- Calling African countries 'shithole countries'
- Punish illegal immigrants, but not the (mostly white) people who hire them
- Telling people that an American judge of Mexican ancestry is unable to preside over a case because of that ancestry
- Throwing someone's resume in the garbage because they have a stereotypically black name
- Lying about the citizenship of a well known black man, and manufacturing a whole birth certificate controversy

Could you tell me which things are "real racism" and which ones are not . . . maybe explaining your reasoning?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 03:12:39 PM
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
Not.

Because the country with the single largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) was not included.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: jlcnuke on February 25, 2019, 03:13:59 PM
Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.

This is an interesting statement to make.

Why do you believe that it's important for a conservative to get different news than everyone else?


I've always been of the opinion that if you're watching a news station because you like what they tell you, then you're getting your information from the wrong place unless the only news you watch is the "feel good story of the day" many seem to do these days. Informed discourse is what builds a society and we, the people, are making ourselves less and less informed by refusing to hear any side of an argument but the one we inherently like and/or are predisposed to believe, regardless of the slant it may be presented with or validity to what we're hearing. I think it's hurt us as a country personally.

I get my news from multiple sources from a variety of viewpoints, both domestic and international, and strive to determine what I think is the right position on any given issue after I've listened to the reasoning each point of view provides. As a result, I also find myself in a situation where:

Quote from: FINate
my conservative friends think I'm a bleeding heart liberal and my liberal friends think I'm a wingnut.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: jlcnuke on February 25, 2019, 03:20:55 PM
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
Not.

Because the country with the single largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) was not included.

Because his lawyers wouldn't allow it because they knew that would make it blatantly a violation of the 1st Amendment, so he settled. It's not because that isn't what he wanted to do.
Quote from: Donald Trump
Dec. 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States "
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on February 25, 2019, 03:22:31 PM
I do wish that people could be a little less polarised in their views. I'm not saying they should change their political views, but they should be able to instinctively understand why another person takes a contrary view, without necessarily endorsing that contrary view.

I make my living by arguing points that I don't necessarily believe in, so I guess I have an advantage here in being able to change views as required.

My "true" views are very strongly libertarian, but almost no one I know shares my views, so I've gotten used to listening to other viewpoints and trying to understand why they may be right or at least more workable in theory than mine.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on February 25, 2019, 03:31:13 PM
Hey man, your rant is in good company: G-dub threw down a similar rant on political partisanship in his 1796 FU address.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 03:32:01 PM
Because his lawyers wouldn't allow it because they knew that would make it blatantly a violation of the 1st Amendment, so he settled. It's not because that isn't what he wanted to do.
Are we talking about what really happened or a thought crime?  If the latter, tip your hat to Orwell for his prescience.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 03:35:09 PM
Because his lawyers wouldn't allow it because they knew that would make it blatantly a violation of the 1st Amendment, so he settled. It's not because that isn't what he wanted to do.
Are we talking about what really happened or a thought crime?  If the latter, tip your hat to Orwell for his prescience.

Someone's statement of intent is perfectly in bounds when it comes to judging their character, regardless of whether they see that intent all the way through.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: robartsd on February 25, 2019, 03:44:13 PM
Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.

This is an interesting statement to make.

Why do you believe that it's important for a conservative to get different news than everyone else?
I think many liberals fail to realize that there is a (slight) anti-conservative bias in mainstream TV news. Conservatives notice the bias and look for other sources. Of course I think @mathlete makes a good point about quality news source not being free (or bundled). There are plenty of examples of free fake news with strong bias on both sides.


some things that are labeled "racist" are just things that people disagree with and not real racism
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
- Implementing laws that make it harder for minorities to vote
- Nationality /= Race; Religion /= Race; (yes ban was discriminatory without being effective at placing a barrier to terrorism, but not strictly speaking racist)
- VoterID /= Racist (if you're talking Jim Crow, then yes that was racist)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: CheapScholar on February 25, 2019, 03:51:02 PM
I get that the board leans very left.  I’m ok with that as a conservative.  Most of the people here are really smart and respectful.  Also, I’m not trying to be a part of an additional political fight on this board (I was in one last year and I’m over it).  I’ll just say to other conservatives and Trump fans that you’re not alone on this board.  I’m proud of my President!  I agree with Trump on virtually everything.  Many of you HATE having him be your President but for me everyday is Christmas.  America First!
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 03:55:20 PM
Someone's statement of intent is perfectly in bounds when it comes to judging their character, regardless of whether they see that intent all the way through.
No argument there.

It's somewhat ironic that PolitiFact claims Trump did not fulfill his "campaign promise": Trump-O-Meter: Establish a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. | PolitiFact (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/). 

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 03:58:46 PM
I think many liberals fail to realize that there is a (slight) anti-conservative bias in mainstream TV news. Conservatives notice the bias and look for other sources. Of course I think @mathlete makes a good point about quality news source not being free (or bundled). There are plenty of examples of free fake news with strong bias on both sides.

There is trash on both sides, but I find that with few exceptions, there is only good journalism on one side. And even this statement counts subscription newspapers and NPR as having a liberal bias. I think these sources are only biased in the sense that, for some reason, things like education, the written word, and fact based discourse have become thought of as "liberal".

The few exceptions I mentioned, would be outlets like the WSJ and The Economist. These are generally thought to have a slight conservative bias. This ain't where base conservatives turn for their news though.

- Nationality /= Race; Religion /= Race; (yes ban was discriminatory without being effective at placing a barrier to terrorism, but not strictly speaking racist)
- VoterID /= Racist (if you're talking Jim Crow, then yes that was racist)

In a friction-less vacuum, Voter ID is not racist. If you implement a law with the intent of keeping a certain race from voting under the guise of combating a bogeyman though, that's racist. Common sense tells us that this is what most implementations of Voter ID are about. But we don't even need common sense.  The North Carolina court decisions spell out for us that this is exactly what is going on when state legislatures push laws like this.

You're right on nationality and religion not being the same as race, but in this instance, I consider that a distinction without a difference.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 25, 2019, 04:02:54 PM
I appreciate the frustration in the original post. It does seem to me that people routinely argue to win rather than to understand and be understood. I know I've certainly been guilty of it (often).

You can't control what other people will do, but you can choose your own behavior. I've been trying a lot over the last few years to change how I approach things like this. Daniel Dennett has some very interesting things to say on arguing intelligently, including his four principles of engaging well in debate:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I also find much to be admired in the ideas of collaborative debate and radical kindness.

The following is not meant as an accusation in any way, @ericrugiero, just a prompt for further discussion--how do you approach disagreement? Are you as kind, open-minded, fair, generous, and collaborative as you can be?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on February 25, 2019, 04:20:57 PM
I get that the board leans very left.

It leans just barely left, to be honest. Publicly provided healthcare, low-cost tertiary education and social welfare programmes are regarded as pretty uncontroversial centre-ground policies across a huge swathe of the developed world. To me, reading in northern Europe, it comes across as mild right if anything. I have not seen a single American politician with any kind of public profile offer an economic policy proposal that an average centre-right European politician would consider unacceptable as a coalition demand from a leftist party. Because there are a number of non-American posters, this does have an impact: virtually every point of difference between American liberals and conservatives leaves the conservative side way off into crazypants territory for a lot of posters outside the States. And I know I sound like I'm exaggerating, but I'm genuinely not: conservative American politics is conducted according to a set of assumptions that western Europeans will, for better or worse, regard as fundamentally cruel and spiteful. I default on the liberal side in any kind of debate on this, because I come from a country where almost 70% of voters endorsed both equal marriage and the right to choose and where both of these referenda were instituted by what is historically the most aggressively conservative party in the country.

And speaking as someone from the outside: Trump has turned your country's international reputation into a colossal garbage fire. I don't think there's any way of explaining to someone on the inside just how catastrophic to American soft power the Trump presidency has been.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on February 25, 2019, 04:31:37 PM

- Nationality /= Race; Religion /= Race; (yes ban was discriminatory without being effective at placing a barrier to terrorism, but not strictly speaking racist)
- VoterID /= Racist (if you're talking Jim Crow, then yes that was racist)

In a friction-less vacuum, Voter ID is not racist. If you implement a law with the intent of keeping a certain race from voting under the guise of combating a bogeyman though, that's racist. Common sense tells us that this is what most implementations of Voter ID are about. But we don't even need common sense.  The North Carolina court decisions spell out for us that this is exactly what is going on when state legislatures push laws like this.

You're right on nationality and religion not being the same as race, but in this instance, I consider that a distinction without a difference.

Immoral? Probably. Unconstitutional? Most definitely. Racist? That's a stretch. If a majority of black people voted Republican, would you consider it racist if politicians were illegally finagling votes in the opposite direction?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 25, 2019, 04:47:34 PM
- Nationality /= Race; Religion /= Race; (yes ban was discriminatory without being effective at placing a barrier to terrorism, but not strictly speaking racist)

Right, but we don't have a single word for "Religionist", and everyone knows what we're talking about. Saying something is "discriminatory but not strictly speaking racist" is quibbling over details and usually an attempt to avoid talking about the actual point.

- VoterID /= Racist (if you're talking Jim Crow, then yes that was racist)

Right. I live in NC, says so right there <-- in my user summary. The Republican NC legislature literally asked for statistics to be compiled on how people of different races vote (which type of ID they have, if they use early voting or not, etc) and then proceeded to make everything that benefited white voters legal and everything that benefited black voters illegal.

And sure, technically Trump's lies are about "Illegals voting in California", not "Latinos voting in California." But given that all credible research into the subject has found that voter fraud is extremely rare and not a real problem (https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth) we all know what he really means. I mean FFS, Trump quietly shut down his own witch hunt into voter fraud because they weren't able to find anything (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/report-trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud).

Is saying "I think it makes sense to make people show ID to vote" racist? Of course not, and actually something I'd be 100% behind if the government mailed everyone a free ID that they could use. But if you look at the whole thing, from the manufacturing of this non-issue to the way it would be enforced to the areas where people claim it's happening, it's very clearly aimed at racist voter suppression. Not necessarily because the Republicans involved are "racists", but because they know most people-of-color would vote for Democrats. But the feelings behind the actions don't matter, the actions themselves are racist because they are aimed at suppressing the vote of people of other races. If you actually bother to look at factual evidence on the issue I don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 25, 2019, 04:51:19 PM

- Nationality /= Race; Religion /= Race; (yes ban was discriminatory without being effective at placing a barrier to terrorism, but not strictly speaking racist)
- VoterID /= Racist (if you're talking Jim Crow, then yes that was racist)

In a friction-less vacuum, Voter ID is not racist. If you implement a law with the intent of keeping a certain race from voting under the guise of combating a bogeyman though, that's racist. Common sense tells us that this is what most implementations of Voter ID are about. But we don't even need common sense.  The North Carolina court decisions spell out for us that this is exactly what is going on when state legislatures push laws like this.

You're right on nationality and religion not being the same as race, but in this instance, I consider that a distinction without a difference.

Immoral? Probably. Unconstitutional? Most definitely. Racist? That's a stretch. If a majority of black people voted Republican, would you consider it racist if politicians were illegally finagling votes in the opposite direction?

Yes, I absolutely would consider it racist if Democrats were doing it in the other direction.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 04:55:51 PM
Immoral? Probably. Unconstitutional? Most definitely. Racist? That's a stretch. If a majority of black people voted Republican, would you consider it racist if politicians were illegally finagling votes in the opposite direction?

If the black franchise is a bargaining chip that you're willing to trade away in order to consolidate political power, I'm perfectly okay with calling that action racist

I certainly don't think such an exchange would fall under the OP's complaint of "racism = you said something I disagree with".
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 05:16:44 PM

Saying something is "discriminatory but not strictly speaking racist" is quibbling over details and usually an attempt to avoid talking about the actual point.


Your whole post was great, but I really wanted to single out this part.

This is my frustration with the centrist/independent community. (I'm not trying to lump robartsd in here, I truly don't know where they stand on anything)

Right: "We need to implement voting restrictions to stop illegal voting."

Left: "Okay, but you requested data on voting by race, and after getting that data, you made five new restrictions, all of which disproportionally affect black voters. That fact, combined with the fact that you have failed to demonstrate that illegal voting is a problem makes this an obvious and racist attempt at suppressing black voter turnout."

Independent: "You really shouldn't have used the word "racist" there. It's unfair to the conservatives. They don't want to suppress the black vote because they don't think blacks should be able to vote, they want to suppress the black vote because they don't like who they vote for. Big difference."

Then we all suck up air discussing an issue that should be easily settled by anyone who has looked at the evidence, and meanwhile, five more legislatures propose similar laws.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: wenchsenior on February 25, 2019, 05:24:06 PM
I have read some interesting sociological research that indicates the people that identify as more liberal and people who identify as more conservative tend to have very different moral values and priorities. 

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind)

If that's true, then it makes sense that it would be extremely difficult for the groups to agree on practical policy (unless the policies can be viewed as accomplishing multiple types of ethical goals), or even to communicate with each other.  If you fundamentally disagree on your foundational moral priorities, then many of your proposed policies will be aiming to accomplish not just different outcomes, but different outcomes for different moral reasons.  And b/c moral and ethical foundations tend to be based more on emotional reasoning, logical arguments of each group against the other's positions not only fail to change opinions, but actually cause each group to view each other as inherently morally questionable and, thus, not even worthy of engaging with.

Also,  humans appear to be biologically wired for tribalism, which can appear on a scale as big as nationalism, or a scale as small as a family feud or group of strangers of one skin color uniting against a group of strangers of another skin color.

It's kind of amazing that societies function at all and we don't all kill each other, IMO.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: AlexMar on February 25, 2019, 05:48:49 PM
I get that the board leans very left.

It leans just barely left, to be honest. Publicly provided healthcare, low-cost tertiary education and social welfare programmes are regarded as pretty uncontroversial centre-ground policies across a huge swathe of the developed world. To me, reading in northern Europe, it comes across as mild right if anything. I have not seen a single American politician with any kind of public profile offer an economic policy proposal that an average centre-right European politician would consider unacceptable as a coalition demand from a leftist party. Because there are a number of non-American posters, this does have an impact: virtually every point of difference between American liberals and conservatives leaves the conservative side way off into crazypants territory for a lot of posters outside the States. And I know I sound like I'm exaggerating, but I'm genuinely not: conservative American politics is conducted according to a set of assumptions that western Europeans will, for better or worse, regard as fundamentally cruel and spiteful. I default on the liberal side in any kind of debate on this, because I come from a country where almost 70% of voters endorsed both equal marriage and the right to choose and where both of these referenda were instituted by what is historically the most aggressively conservative party in the country.

And speaking as someone from the outside: Trump has turned your country's international reputation into a colossal garbage fire. I don't think there's any way of explaining to someone on the inside just how catastrophic to American soft power the Trump presidency has been.

My family is European (Nordic).  They wouldn't agree with you at all.  I've found people there FAR more socially conservative than in the US.  Kind of funny, actually.  They are economically more liberal for sure, though.

Anyways, OP, it's a scientific fact that liberals are far more emotionally driven than conservatives. Which is why it's hard to discuss anything with them on a rational level.  They think too emotionally.  It's why it's difficult to have these discussions.  It's why they label everyone as racists, and really believe it.  They can't rationalize other points of view beyond their strict emotional disdain.  Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming a real thing to the point it's flat out fascinating.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107091559.htm
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: golden1 on February 25, 2019, 06:16:49 PM
Quote
Anyways, OP, it's a scientific fact that liberals are far more emotionally driven than conservatives. Which is why it's hard to discuss anything with them on a rational level.  They think too emotionally.  It's why it's difficult to have these discussions.  It's why they label everyone as racists, and really believe it.  They can't rationalize other points of view beyond their strict emotional disdain.  Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming a real thing to the point it's flat out fascinating.

Thanks, that was a good laugh. 

Here is another article that backs up my perception of conservatives - they are fearful cowards.

https://www.insidescience.org/video/neurobiology-political-belief

Conservatives are more influenced by negative emotions and stimuli. They get disgusted easily, reacting stronger to ideas of impurity and disease.  They don’t thoughtfully and logically think through their political views, they react out of fear and loathing.  This is why a con-man like trump is so appealing even though he is an obvious criminal.  He knows how to tap into that fear.

I do think liberals are more swayed by positive emotions and might be perceived as more mercurial, probably because they are more open to change and new ideas.  Even the word “conservative” implies that they are less open to novelty and cling to what makes them feel secure. 

See, isn’t it awesome to be stereotyped? 



Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: JZinCO on February 25, 2019, 06:19:45 PM
  I occasionally get frustrated with comments in this forum but I'm frequently disappointed with comments from both liberals and conservatives elsewhere who don't seem to be able to see both sides of an issue and make logical arguments for why they believe what they do. So many comments (on facebook, twitter, tv, etc) are inflammatory and lack the logical arguments needed to change anyone's mind.

I'm not going to explain it for you (Because what do I know, I'm just some guy on a forum).

But I would HIGHLY recommend a few resources. They have helped me see that 1) political divides are driven by differences in values. 2) it gets dangerous when we start ascribing motivations to those we disagree with, 3)To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, the best way to know yourself and understand the world is to discuss your views with those that you disagree with most. That's why I love being right-leaning on a university campus. I'm not going to change other's opinions (though I have softened some hardliners); it's because, in the Socratic tradition, I get to better understand the world by grappling with viewpoints of those I disagree with.
Note: None of these resources can help you change society. I think they will help you think about society which is far more satisfying because it's you afterall that has to negotiate your place in it. Now I don't get whipped up into partisanship or the opposite, apathy/hopelessness.

resources:
JS Mill https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
Jonathan Haidt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw
Arthur Brooks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87AEeLpodnE
Motive attribution assymetry drives intractable conflict https://www.pnas.org/content/111/44/15687
Your Morals quiz. This is similar to the big 5 quiz. Taking this with my ex helped elucidate why we had different political views. Knowing that helped us speak to our respective values when discussing a heated policy topic
https://www.yourmorals.org/


Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Eric on February 25, 2019, 06:27:46 PM
I get that the board leans very left.

It leans just barely left, to be honest. Publicly provided healthcare, low-cost tertiary education and social welfare programmes are regarded as pretty uncontroversial centre-ground policies across a huge swathe of the developed world. To me, reading in northern Europe, it comes across as mild right if anything. I have not seen a single American politician with any kind of public profile offer an economic policy proposal that an average centre-right European politician would consider unacceptable as a coalition demand from a leftist party. Because there are a number of non-American posters, this does have an impact: virtually every point of difference between American liberals and conservatives leaves the conservative side way off into crazypants territory for a lot of posters outside the States. And I know I sound like I'm exaggerating, but I'm genuinely not: conservative American politics is conducted according to a set of assumptions that western Europeans will, for better or worse, regard as fundamentally cruel and spiteful. I default on the liberal side in any kind of debate on this, because I come from a country where almost 70% of voters endorsed both equal marriage and the right to choose and where both of these referenda were instituted by what is historically the most aggressively conservative party in the country.

And speaking as someone from the outside: Trump has turned your country's international reputation into a colossal garbage fire. I don't think there's any way of explaining to someone on the inside just how catastrophic to American soft power the Trump presidency has been.

My family is European (Nordic).  They wouldn't agree with you at all.  I've found people there FAR more socially conservative than in the US.  Kind of funny, actually.  They are economically more liberal for sure, though.

Anyways, OP, it's a scientific fact that liberals are far more emotionally driven than conservatives. Which is why it's hard to discuss anything with them on a rational level.  They think too emotionally.  It's why it's difficult to have these discussions.  It's why they label everyone as racists, and really believe it.  They can't rationalize other points of view beyond their strict emotional disdain.  Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming a real thing to the point it's flat out fascinating.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107091559.htm

Your link basically says that people on "the left" are more likely to show greater empathy whereas people on "the right" are more likely to exhibit less.  That's it.  So either you didn't read it, or you thought no one else would.  The rest of your "conclusions" are just stereotypical hogwash that you're using to make it seem like your team is better without actually having to have a real debate with any of the rational liberals on this thread.  Your claim of "scientific fact" is flat out laughable.

But yes, you should probably dismiss all of the guilty pleas and prison sentences handed down so far in the Mueller investigation as Trump Derangement Syndrome.  That's got to be much easier than admitting that your President is a Russian puppet and a traitor to his own country.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt pal.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on February 25, 2019, 06:40:49 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives think they can wage all-out, no holds barred political warfare against democrats for eight years and still expect comity, civility and an assumption of good intentions from liberals.  For fucks sake, your elected representatives STOLE a supreme court seat.  I don't believe there is a single conservative here who could honestly tell me that they would have found no problem with Harry Reid refusing to vote on George Bushes supreme court nominees for a year.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 06:52:49 PM
I don't believe there is a single conservative here who could honestly tell me that they would have found no problem with Harry Reid refusing to vote on George Bushes supreme court nominees for a year.
Probably ~the same as the number of liberals who could honestly tell you that they had no problem with McConnell's actions.

Neither the liberals nor the conservatives have the moral high ground when it comes to much political infighting.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on February 25, 2019, 07:29:02 PM
I came of age in the 1990s when Conservative and Liberals were generally much more willing to work with one another than today, so the current political environment is shocking and disturbing to me.

For all the nastiness in the 1990s with Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary and getting impeached by the House for it (which never really made much sense to me from a legal standpoint), the GOP was still willing to work with him on compromise legislation that allowed the government to function and made the economy keep humming along. Now, everybody on both sides of the aisle is completely unwilling to even listen to what the other side has to say about anything and forget compromise. Instead, we have both sides making ultimatums to each other and calling each other "Nazis" or "Communists". And ordinary people across the political spectrum are suffering for it as we saw during the recent government shutdown.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 07:47:58 PM
Man oh man these both-sides justification posts sure are something.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 07:53:51 PM
Man oh man these both-sides justification posts sure are something.
What, you think conservatives are all pure as the driven snow and liberals are evil incarnate?  I think not.... :)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 08:05:27 PM
Man oh man these both-sides justification posts sure are something.
What, you think conservatives are all pure as the driven snow and liberals are evil incarnate?  I think not.... :)

"Both-sides" statements bother me because they often don't acknowledge that while both sides are "bad", one side is so much worse on several objective measures.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 25, 2019, 08:31:25 PM
Alright, but none of this back and forth is addressing the issue the OP brings up (it's just demonstrating the problem).

Anyways, OP, it's a scientific fact that liberals are far more emotionally driven than conservatives. Which is why it's hard to discuss anything with them on a rational level.  They think too emotionally.  It's why it's difficult to have these discussions.  It's why they label everyone as racists, and really believe it.  They can't rationalize other points of view beyond their strict emotional disdain.

@AlexMar - I'm probably what you'd consider a liberal. I also like to think of myself as pretty rational. I've never had someone comment that it's hard to discuss something with me (at least not to my face). I know you don't know me apart from what you could read in my earlier posts on this site, so maybe you just don't believe me. But do you think we could have a resepctful conversation about a contentious subject? I think we could.

And I don't think I'm anything special, so I think the same could be said about a lot of people you disagree with.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: middo on February 25, 2019, 08:39:37 PM
From an Australian perspective, the extremes of the conservative fringe, and the left/green fringe have been kept at bay largely because of our compulsory voting system. 

It's hard to get elected on a base of 25% of the population when 87% of the population turns out and votes (91% of registered voters and an all time low last election).

It's also hard to get elected with extreme policies when the voting system is not first past the post.

Maybe electoral reform could help the US with the extremity of it's current political debate.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MaaS on February 25, 2019, 09:31:00 PM
From an Australian perspective, the extremes of the conservative fringe, and the left/green fringe have been kept at bay largely because of our compulsory voting system. 

It's hard to get elected on a base of 25% of the population when 87% of the population turns out and votes (91% of registered voters and an all time low last election).

It's also hard to get elected with extreme policies when the voting system is not first past the post.

Maybe electoral reform could help the US with the extremity of it's current political debate.

I think the Australian voting system is fantastic in this way.  It'd be difficult to pass, but the US would benefit from this.  But, where we really need reform is our primary system. Now THAT is a joke. I tried explaining it to a couple Aussies once and they about laughed me out of the pub.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: the_fixer on February 25, 2019, 09:34:50 PM
Honestly I used to like this site much more prior to the last election cycle I get tired of the far right and far left leaning individuals fighting with each other and have seriously thought about deleting my account.

So many threads that could have been great have been taken over by people bickering about politics.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 09:38:58 PM
Alright, but none of this back and forth is addressing the issue the OP brings up (it's just demonstrating the problem).

Honestly, I don't really know how I feel about engaging with OP's issue, because I read it as a completely non-controversial statement that no one can disagree with, ("Why can't we get along?") but it is paired with a giant helping of ill-informed (at best) or disingenuous (at worst) statements. I feel like engaging with the first part can only be done in truisms ("Yes, we all should work harder to understand each other") that then go on to lead credibility to the ill-informed or disingenuous parts.

I'll expand on what I take issue with below:

Quote
"Right now, our media as a whole and many other people are so caught up in trashing Donald Trump and anyone they disagree with that we can't have a reasonable and open discussion without getting mad and defensive."

Donald Trump is an extremely petty, unfocused, egotistical individual who tells outlandish lies and picks fights with the media on a nearly daily basis. No one who pays any modicum of attention would disagree with this. It is extraordinarily disingenuous to hold his critics and the media responsible for the fact that honest political discourse is difficult. I cannot stress that enough. He tells not just run-of-the-mill political half truths, but massive lies that tear at the fabric of some of our most prized institutions. Like when he repeats over and over that 3 million people voted illegally. When 89% of Republicans approve of Trump (per the latest Gallup pole), it is hard not to come to the conclusion that conservatives just don't value honest political discourse very highly.

Quote

"It seems like racism has become a default accusation if you disagree with someone."

In the main, it is wrong to dismiss charges of racism from the left as code for, "I disagree". While there are certainly some people who will cry racism on everything and anything, most of the accusations that gain traction and attention stem from something that is demonstrably racist. For example:

- Congressman Steve King's white nationalist rhetoric has, until extremely recently, gone relatively unchallenged by his Republican colleagues
- The Republican legislature of NC used racial voting data to pass five voting restrictions that disproportionately made it harder for blacks to vote. This is a fairly non-controversial conclusion. It is the conclusion reached by the 4th circuit court, and the Supreme Court balked at hearing the appeal.
- President Donald Trump routinely referred to a natural born American judge as a "Mexican", and used his racial background to claim he couldn't give a fair ruling.
- Prior to the election, the President spread grossly inaccurate, anti black propaganda that cited completely made up statistics painting blacks as a menace to whites

The narrative that Republicans are behind on race relations did not materialize out of nowhere.

Quote
"(Obama) didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive)."

I disagree. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced drug sentencing disparities that were legislated in the 1980s. His DoJ prioritized Federal prosecution of marijuana crimes. Bias in the judicial system and draconian drug laws are responsible for breaking up many black families and widening racial inequalities. Moves like that may take a while to show up, but they will show up eventually.

To the Trump administration's credit, they've shown willingness to do more on criminal justice reform as well.

The Obama DoJ also ordered a review of policing Ferguson Missouri, which exposed some really nasty stuff, and gave us all sorts of great data that can be used in the national discussion of police/race relations. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 09:42:37 PM
Honestly I used to like this site much more prior to the last election cycle I get tired of the far right and far left leaning individuals fighting with each other and have seriously thought about deleting my account.

So many threads that could have been great have been taken over by people bickering about politics.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Not enough bickering over whether it's better to rent or buy. Not enough bickering over the proper extent to which we can judge our coworkers for leasing a new car.

=)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 09:49:51 PM
Man oh man these both-sides justification posts sure are something.
What, you think conservatives are all pure as the driven snow and liberals are evil incarnate?  I think not.... :)
"Both-sides" statements bother me because they often don't acknowledge that while both sides are "bad", one side is so much worse on several objective measures.
Asking people to acknowledge that their "side" is "so much worse" generally isn't an effective discussion technique.  For the most part, they wouldn't be on that side if they believed it to be worse.

Unfortunately, one person's objective truth is another's subjective belief.  One of the more interesting (at least to me - maybe I'm not being objective) questions in Myers Briggs test is "justice vs. mercy": I don't know how one determines which of those is objectively better.

Because people may bring different assumptions to any given issue, it's not surprising if they reach different conclusions.  It can a more interesting and even useful exercise to discuss the assumptions themselves. 

E.g., what assumptions one brings to a Voter ID discussion may be wildly different than another brings.  And whose assumptions are more grounded in reality may differ from state to state.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 25, 2019, 10:07:13 PM
Asking people to acknowledge that their "side" is "so much worse" generally isn't an effective discussion technique.  For the most part, they wouldn't be on that side if they believed it to be worse.

Unfortunately, one person's objective truth is another's subjective belief.  One of the more interesting (at least to me - maybe I'm not being objective) questions in Myers Briggs test is "justice vs. mercy": I don't know how one determines which of those is objectively better.

Because people may bring different assumptions to any given issue, it's not surprising if they reach different conclusions.  It can a more interesting and even useful exercise to discuss the assumptions themselves. 

E.g., what assumptions one brings to a Voter ID discussion may be wildly different than another brings.  And whose assumptions are more grounded in reality may differ from state to state.

I respect that there are any number of issues on which there can be a reasonable range of disagreement. I don't like our gun culture in the United States, but if someone honestly prioritizes their right to responsibly own and use guns over the 30,000 lives that are lost to gun violence each year, I can't pass judgement on them. The constitution backs them up. I don't like it, and I can try to convince them otherwise, but I respect this as a reasonable disagreement.

Other topics, like voter fraud, are as close to an objective reality as we can get though. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. The President's claim that 3 million people voted illegally comes from literally fucking nowhere. His voter fraud commission unceremoniously disbanded, and he just threw out more vagueries and conspiracy theories.

So it drives me up a wall when "voter fraud" is still used to justify voting restrictions that are pretty clearly aimed at suppressing minority turnout. People believe what they believe for lots of reasons, but I would expect so-called independent observers to recognize the objective realities. Hence why "both-sides" bothers me so much.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 25, 2019, 10:35:55 PM
So it drives me up a wall when "voter fraud" is still used to justify voting restrictions that are pretty clearly aimed at suppressing minority turnout. People believe what they believe for lots of reasons, but I would expect so-called independent observers to recognize the objective realities. Hence why "both-sides" bothers me so much.
I can agree with you on "intentionally difficult to obtain" implementation of voter ID.  Sometimes that is indeed blatant, and those cases ought not be allowed.  Seems various Republican plans don't pass the smell test, so they don't have a good defense there.

I also have no problem with the general concept of a voter ID, implemented well.  Seems Democrat objections to the general concept also don't pass the smell test, so they don't have a good defense there.

But that's just one person's view of both sides.

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Mikenost12 on February 25, 2019, 11:54:20 PM
  The system is dying and rotting and feels fraudulent and we aren't sure where to direct our rage...




 
 
  Both sides are bought and paid for, our government, our media, our laws (what is left of them), we didn’t guard our institutions from influence by the rich and powerful. Maybe it has always been that way but before maybe some of the rich and powerful adhered to more egalitarian notions of what our country could be, a sense of noblesse oblige or that the social contract meant society and government have an obligation to provide and protect certain things.

  Similarly our newspapers, TV stations are held by fewer and fewer conglomerations and ultrarich. Who is going to give us the truth, Rupert Murdoch’s news, Jeff Bezo’s newspaper.  General Electric owning channel 4 and making nuclear weapons, Sumner Redstone owning Viacom and CBS, Disney owning ABC, Time Warner AOL, etc... The think tanks are millionaires spouting what the billionaires want. There is no independent media anymore.
 
 Similarly in the name of freedom of speech , the Russians can make up fake stories and Facebook can defend putting them up. Radical right can make up stories about child sex rings run by Clinton and Shumer, or Sandy Hook massacre being a made up lie, and it’s not slander or propaganda or something you can sue them for or shut them down for saying, but allowed to be said …  …after all free speech.  Freedom to make up stories and outright lie… I can’t say we are better off than when we had Cronkite, Murrow and we all shared fewer sources of news but they were real. 

 The growing income inequality and feeling it is getting harder rather than easier for most in the 1st world countries leads to feeling disenfranchised. Many generations did better than previous generations and maybe that had been our expecation. As the American Empire is in decline, we outsourced our production to a nation on the rise with 4x our population,  (a substantially greater population than the US, Canada, Mexico, all of the European Union, England, Japan, Australia combined).

  Both Democrats and Republican told us outsourcing everything and freetrade with poorer economies was a win/win, cheaper goods and growth for everyone. They said free markets and capitalism will bring with it democracy and human rights. Fareed Zakaria (likely on the right side of humanity and a better person than me) pointed out that stagnation and growth of inequality is ok in the first world because the rest of the world, the developing world has been pulling out of poverty, growing rapidly. While the first world is stuck and frustrated, with little growth in real wages adjusted for inflation, with more polarization and far right movements taking power in Western Governments its ok, less people globally are starving, suffering or dying in childbirth. With less barriers the wealth and growth of the world is slowly moving towards homeostasis.

  With rulings like Citizens United, corporations and the wealthy are allowed to give unlimited money, and further laws make it so it is a matter of privacy to be able to not disclose how much money they give and to who. In any other system if a person pays another secretly for a behavior it is bribery, however in politics we somehow are now at a point where our politicians must raise millions, tens of millions of dollars from the rich and or corporations, oil, pharmaceuticals, banks, teachers, whatever and then we expect them to represent the We The People not special interests.  For a very small sum they can buy people to appoint judges to help them win, force more decisions into arbitration, get laws written to protect them and remove ones that don’t, defund institutions that protect or regulate, after all bloated government is the enemy right... corporations create jobs…

  When our government serves the rich, our media is bought and controlled, and peoples lives get steadily worse, while our empire slips away, its no wonder we are all disenfranchised, looking to blame minorities, or the immoral, or the disloyal, or the arrogant coastal elite, or the religious, or the lazy takers or whatever convenient scapegoat people find. The scarier truth is the very rich use only a small amount of their wealth to control policy and ideas both. Hell for 40 years the rich have been selling the idea government doesn’t work, government is the problem, without laws things would be even better. Despite the erosion of government, people’s lives are slowly more difficult, we are scared. The successful older generation confused as to what is wrong with the lazy whiny younger ones, after all the older generation did just fine.

Angry, frustrated people look for someone to blame rather than multifaceted set of complicated issues with tradeoffs as you try to fix them. When we had the Cold War at least we were unified I guess, maybe a joint cause we can all work for, fix the environment, go to space, unify with democracies that respect human rights, I don’t know what our new unifying cause could be that makes us remember we are all on the same side.

Sorry for anyone that read my long late night screed, but in short we should be a better country than this. We don’t lock children in cages as a message to illegal immigrants, we don’t tell our allies we fought world wars they are on their own, we don’t suppress voting and gerrymander districts, we don't ignore science. We used to stand for advancing freedom, human rights, democracy and human dignity (ignoring the hypocracy in our actual actions at least we tried then). America won’t always be the most powerful or richest nation on Earth but for F!@$ sake our legacy should be advancing those ideals.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on February 26, 2019, 12:56:13 AM
I get that the board leans very left.

It leans just barely left, to be honest. Publicly provided healthcare, low-cost tertiary education and social welfare programmes are regarded as pretty uncontroversial centre-ground policies across a huge swathe of the developed world. To me, reading in northern Europe, it comes across as mild right if anything. I have not seen a single American politician with any kind of public profile offer an economic policy proposal that an average centre-right European politician would consider unacceptable as a coalition demand from a leftist party. Because there are a number of non-American posters, this does have an impact: virtually every point of difference between American liberals and conservatives leaves the conservative side way off into crazypants territory for a lot of posters outside the States. And I know I sound like I'm exaggerating, but I'm genuinely not: conservative American politics is conducted according to a set of assumptions that western Europeans will, for better or worse, regard as fundamentally cruel and spiteful. I default on the liberal side in any kind of debate on this, because I come from a country where almost 70% of voters endorsed both equal marriage and the right to choose and where both of these referenda were instituted by what is historically the most aggressively conservative party in the country.

And speaking as someone from the outside: Trump has turned your country's international reputation into a colossal garbage fire. I don't think there's any way of explaining to someone on the inside just how catastrophic to American soft power the Trump presidency has been.

My family is European (Nordic).  They wouldn't agree with you at all.  I've found people there FAR more socially conservative than in the US.  Kind of funny, actually.  They are economically more liberal for sure, though.

Anyways, OP, it's a scientific fact that liberals are far more emotionally driven than conservatives. Which is why it's hard to discuss anything with them on a rational level.  They think too emotionally.  It's why it's difficult to have these discussions.  It's why they label everyone as racists, and really believe it.  They can't rationalize other points of view beyond their strict emotional disdain.  Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming a real thing to the point it's flat out fascinating.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107091559.htm

Arguing that the other side are impossibly irrational by presenting a wildly irrational mangling of a scientific paper. This has to be trolling.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: middo on February 26, 2019, 01:59:49 AM
From an Australian perspective, the extremes of the conservative fringe, and the left/green fringe have been kept at bay largely because of our compulsory voting system. 

It's hard to get elected on a base of 25% of the population when 87% of the population turns out and votes (91% of registered voters and an all time low last election).

It's also hard to get elected with extreme policies when the voting system is not first past the post.

Maybe electoral reform could help the US with the extremity of it's current political debate.

I think the Australian voting system is fantastic in this way.  It'd be difficult to pass, but the US would benefit from this.  But, where we really need reform is our primary system. Now THAT is a joke. I tried explaining it to a couple Aussies once and they about laughed me out of the pub.

Having watched some of the presidential primaries, I'm not surprised. The right wing "Liberal Party" in Australia has enough issues with its preselection process.  The US system is farcical to those outside the US.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on February 26, 2019, 05:51:18 AM

Saying something is "discriminatory but not strictly speaking racist" is quibbling over details and usually an attempt to avoid talking about the actual point.


Your whole post was great, but I really wanted to single out this part.

This is my frustration with the centrist/independent community. (I'm not trying to lump robartsd in here, I truly don't know where they stand on anything)

Right: "We need to implement voting restrictions to stop illegal voting."

Left: "Okay, but you requested data on voting by race, and after getting that data, you made five new restrictions, all of which disproportionally affect black voters. That fact, combined with the fact that you have failed to demonstrate that illegal voting is a problem makes this an obvious and racist attempt at suppressing black voter turnout."

Independent: "You really shouldn't have used the word "racist" there. It's unfair to the conservatives. They don't want to suppress the black vote because they don't think blacks should be able to vote, they want to suppress the black vote because they don't like who they vote for. Big difference."

Then we all suck up air discussing an issue that should be easily settled by anyone who has looked at the evidence, and meanwhile, five more legislatures propose similar laws.

Good job pegging me in my hole. (After writing that, it doesn't seem like such a friendly analogy.) Despite never registering for a party and choosing not to be partisan, I've never been able to stomach voting Republican, despite sharing many views. For what it's worth.

To get back to the topic: by your reasoning every act that disproportionally affects the black (our any racial minority) vote is racist. This would include gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and even the recent North Carolina voter fraud where the Republican did not perform his fraud in black communities (Harris-McCready). It's certainly possible (maybe even probable) that some of these people are racist, but the motive is pure politics. Just as, I am fairly convinced, institutional racism followed slavery, and not the other way around.

One thing I will concede: Targeting the black vote specifically comes closer to institutional racism than any of the other examples, and punishment should be accordingly severe.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 05:59:08 AM
I also have no problem with the general concept of a voter ID, implemented well. Seems Democrat objections to the general concept also don't pass the smell test, so they don't have a good defense there.

But that's just one person's view of both sides.

Can you expand on this?

1. The right to vote is specifically enumerated in the constitution. Doesn’t it make more sense that the burden should be on the people who want to put up barriers to voting? Doesn’t seem that Democrats need a reason to oppose this other than it makes it harder to participate in elections for no empirical reason.

2. In the national discussion on Voter ID, have Democrats done anything to damage the discourse on this topic that is even remotely comparable to a president and party head routinely lying about the issue by fear mongering with made up numbers?

The very important nuance of item 2 is lost when we reduce an issue to “both sides”.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 26, 2019, 06:19:08 AM
To get back to the topic: by your reasoning every act that disproportionally affects the black (our any racial minority) vote is racist. This would include gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and even the recent North Carolina voter fraud where the Republican did not perform his fraud in black communities (Harris-McCready).

Any act that intentionally disproportionally harms minorities is racist, absolutely yes. I don't see how any other definition of the word could be useful.

It's certainly possible (maybe even probable) that some of these people are racist, but the motive is pure politics.

Motives are unknowable and irrelevant (not to mention multi-faceted and often hidden). Actions and their consequences are the only things that we can observe, and the only thing that matter.

Just as, I am fairly convinced, institutional racism followed slavery, and not the other way around.

I agree with you, but I don't see how that's relevant. If you're interested you should check out "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. He looks at history through the lens of "the rich oppressing the poor", and makes a compelling argument (backed up with lots of documentation) that racism was intentionally introduced as a way to give the poor whites an enemy to hate to distract them from the fact that the rich white plantation owners were consuming 90% (my made up number) of the economic output.

For the sake of argument let's assume he's correct. Are the rich white plantation owners "not really racist" because they don't "believe" their racist rhetoric but only talk and act like they do?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 06:22:27 AM
Good job pegging me in my hole. (After writing that, it doesn't seem like such a friendly analogy.)

Oh my!!


To get back to the topic: by your reasoning every act that disproportionally affects the black (our any racial minority) vote is racist. This would include gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and even the recent North Carolina voter fraud where the Republican did not perform his fraud in black communities (Harris-McCready). It's certainly possible (maybe even probable) that some of these people are racist, but the motive is pure politics. Just as, I am fairly convinced, institutional racism followed slavery, and not the other way around.

One thing I will concede: Targeting the black vote specifically comes closer to institutional racism than any of the other examples, and punishment should be accordingly severe.

I think intent and the specifics matter. Not everything that disproportionately affects one race is racist. Let's use a few examples.

Example 1: Voter fraud is rampant. Lack of a robust validation system leads to a significant illegal voting. Voter ID laws are implemented to remedy this.

This would not be a racist policy because it is clearly being done to combat an actual, verifiable problem in the election system. In this scenario, I would hope a good legislature would address the concerns of the black electorate and take steps to make sure black communities have an easier time getting the required documentation, but no, not racist.

Example 2: The state legislature implements restrictions on voting that target black people because they do not like black people.

Clearly super racist. Pretty open and shut.

Example 3 (reality): I'll just quote the Fourth Circuit Court Decision on this one:

Quote
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.

Unlike in example 1, the intent here is obviously to suppress the black vote. Taking specifically with the intent to suppress the franchise of a particular race is racist. Regardless of whatever ends you want to achieve. In this case, the ends are the consolidation of political power, which doesn't really help them IMO. This is what lawmakers do when more explicit discrimination becomes illegal.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 26, 2019, 06:35:29 AM
I came of age in the 1990s when Conservative and Liberals were generally much more willing to work with one another than today, so the current political environment is shocking and disturbing to me.

For all the nastiness in the 1990s with Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary and getting impeached by the House for it (which never really made much sense to me from a legal standpoint), the GOP was still willing to work with him on compromise legislation that allowed the government to function and made the economy keep humming along. Now, everybody on both sides of the aisle is completely unwilling to even listen to what the other side has to say about anything and forget compromise. Instead, we have both sides making ultimatums to each other and calling each other "Nazis" or "Communists". And ordinary people across the political spectrum are suffering for it as we saw during the recent government shutdown.

You should read that article on Newt Gingrich (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/) I posted earlier. Or a different one, I don't care. Newt and people like him intentionally and deliberately dragged us down to this level because they believed that it was a way for the Republican party to rise to power again and break the Democrat's 40-year long control of the House. And they're openly proud of it. He didn't do it single-handedly of course, there are other political operatives and billionaires with axes to grind intentionally slanting news sources, equivocating on facts, and intentionally misleading the public.

It's not just something that has happened to emerge, its an intentional strategy that the Republican powers-that-be are pursuing in order to win at any cost. And it's working.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: billy on February 26, 2019, 06:42:25 AM
Why is the country so polarized? Because people have put their identity in political parties (or, rather, in opposition to whichever party they don't like). Recommended reading: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

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

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

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

Yep, +1 for moderate/independent
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 26, 2019, 06:49:31 AM
Quote
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.

Unlike in example 1, the intent here is obviously to suppress the black vote. Taking specifically with the intent to suppress the franchise of a particular race is racist. Regardless of whatever ends you want to achieve. In this case, the ends are the consolidation of political power, which doesn't really help them IMO. This is what lawmakers do when more explicit discrimination becomes illegal.

It's worth noting that this is not unique to NC. We could for example talk about Mississippi that enacted a strict voter-id law but "it's okay because you can get a free ID at the DMV", and then immediately after the law passed started closing down DMVs in black areas (https://www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html). Or how when North Dakota implemented a voter ID law how they straight copied it from another state except adding a "the ID must have a street address" clause, because many roads on Native American reservations are not named and so many Native Americans just don't have a street address (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places).

The details and how open and brazen they are about it varies state-by-state, the broad strokes of voter fraud not being a real problem and the Republicans pursing voter IDs to suppress the minority vote does not.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2019, 07:48:23 AM
I came of age in the 1990s when Conservative and Liberals were generally much more willing to work with one another than today, so the current political environment is shocking and disturbing to me.

For all the nastiness in the 1990s with Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary and getting impeached by the House for it (which never really made much sense to me from a legal standpoint), the GOP was still willing to work with him on compromise legislation that allowed the government to function and made the economy keep humming along. Now, everybody on both sides of the aisle is completely unwilling to even listen to what the other side has to say about anything and forget compromise. Instead, we have both sides making ultimatums to each other and calling each other "Nazis" or "Communists". And ordinary people across the political spectrum are suffering for it as we saw during the recent government shutdown.

I am certainly not conservative, but am glad that Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual impropriety.  He abused his position of authority and did something not just wrong, but illegal.  While generally I was a fan of his policies, allowing people in power to get away with illegal actions is not just wrong but extremely dangerous.  The president certainly shouldn't be above the law, regardless of which side he is on.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 07:49:35 AM
Can you expand on this?

1. The right to vote is specifically enumerated in the constitution. Doesn’t it make more sense that the burden should be on the people who want to put up barriers to voting? Doesn’t seem that Democrats need a reason to oppose this other than it makes it harder to participate in elections for no empirical reason.
Agreed, if the barriers are unreasonable.  Various poll taxes and "literacy" tests are good examples of unreasonable barriers.  But one doesn't get the right to vote more than once per election, and at minimum has to meet constitutional conditions.  Thus, reasonable methods to ensure compliance seem...reasonable.

Quote
2. In the national discussion on Voter ID, have Democrats done anything to damage the discourse on this topic that is even remotely comparable to a president and party head routinely lying about the issue by fear mongering with made up numbers?
The very important nuance of item 2 is lost when we reduce an issue to “both sides”.
Voter id discussion predates Trump.  If the question is "does Trump spout incorrect statements on a regular basis?" the answer is yes.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything Trump supports is wrong, or that everything he opposes is right.

Do you think voter ID is inherently bad, or is it a reasonable idea in theory that has been implemented poorly in some cases?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on February 26, 2019, 07:51:42 AM
Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.  I guess my issue with the comment implying racism (and others supporting it) is that an assumption is being made about conservatives that is not true of the majority of them.  You can watch a tv station or show without agreeing with everything on it.

The problem with Fox News is that we know, empirically, that it makes people believe untrue things.

We can ask, for instance: Were there WMD in Iraq?
During the war Fox News viewers will probably (66% or more) say yes, because Fox News told them so.
Other people will say no.

The fact - not opinion, but the fact is - that there were no usable WMDs in that country, just leftover non-functioning crap the U.S. sold them during the Iran-Iraq war that they couldn't even keep track of, never mind maintain or use.

That's a problem.  Look at the number of Fox News viewers who thought Obama was either a Muslim, a Kenyan, a Nazi etc.  Remember the "terrorist fist jab"?

Donald Trump, as anyone not in the United States can see, is an objectively horrible human being.  He brags about how his wealth allows him to assault women, brags about walking into teenage girls' dressing rooms, bloviates, blusters and lies constantly about literally everything. (His wall is not an emergency, will cost more than $5B, will not stop illegal immigration or drugs, Mexico will not pay for it, it will not reduce crime).  But he's on the right team, so he gets the votes.  When a Democrat steps out of line (e.g. Al Franken, Anthony Wiener), the Democrats take him down.

To your question: why does it have to be this way?

One side is required to work from facts and scientific evidence, to censure its members for poor actions, to endure racist and sexist abuse.
The other side chose as its leader a racist, sexist abuser who doesn't give a shit whether the things he says are true or not - and the party supports him.

That's the reason your two sides can't see eye to eye.

Also... what?
Quote
Obama was our first black president which is great (I disagree with many of his policies but I'm glad we had a black president).  But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).

Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.  His divisiveness was his mixed-race blackness and the fact he forced your nation to look at its racist past and present.  That division was always there.  But his election coincided with the ubiquity of cell phones capturing racism and forcing white people to face it.  He didn't divided your nation - he made your white people notice how shittily the country treated black people.

You want to have an honest, non-emotional discussion and you put "Obama's divisiveness" in your opening statement?

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: driftwood on February 26, 2019, 07:52:20 AM
Is there anyone else to completely avoids or disengages from any conversation or article once you hear or read general statements about liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans?

I react to those statements just like I react to someone calling someone racist instead of addressing a problem.

I don't know the political parties of any of my coworkers, friends, or family. If I did find out, I'd ignore it, and probably forget it almost instantly. It's not a way I want to classify a person. If someone does something stupid or has a stupid policy, the action or policy is stupid.

All divisive language turns me off. Fine. If you just want to throw shit at people, let's have a shit fight. We'll both be covered in shit and nothing will be better. If you want to actually talk about possible solutions to all the problems we have as humans, then let's discuss the actual problems, causes, solutions.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2019, 07:56:16 AM
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
Not.

Because the country with the single largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) was not included.


Let's say I'm the president.  I say 'White people have oppressed others for too long.  In order to even things out, I'm going to tax all people in the country with a mostly white sounding name (Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Davis, Miller, Wilson, etc.) at 90%.

You would argue that I'm not implementing a racist policy because some black people probably have those last names too?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on February 26, 2019, 07:57:02 AM
Can you expand on this?

1. The right to vote is specifically enumerated in the constitution. Doesn’t it make more sense that the burden should be on the people who want to put up barriers to voting? Doesn’t seem that Democrats need a reason to oppose this other than it makes it harder to participate in elections for no empirical reason.
Agreed, if the barriers are unreasonable.  Various poll taxes and "literacy" tests are good examples of unreasonable barriers.  But one doesn't get the right to vote more than once per election, and at minimum has to meet constitutional conditions.  Thus, reasonable methods to ensure compliance seem...reasonable.

Quote
2. In the national discussion on Voter ID, have Democrats done anything to damage the discourse on this topic that is even remotely comparable to a president and party head routinely lying about the issue by fear mongering with made up numbers?
The very important nuance of item 2 is lost when we reduce an issue to “both sides”.
Voter id discussion predates Trump.  If the question is "does Trump spout incorrect statements on a regular basis?" the answer is yes.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything Trump supports is wrong, or that everything he opposes is right.

Do you think voter ID is inherently bad, or is it a reasonable idea in theory that has been implemented poorly in some cases?

This has been answered by both mathlete and sherr. A voter ID requirement in combination with mailing voter ID's to everyone would be acceptable. If it could be implemented in some other way that does not deter any eligible voters from turning out, it would be fine.

But why would we put the energy into making that happen when voter fraud is a non-issue?

I think intent and the specifics matter. Not everything that disproportionately affects one race is racist. Let's use a few examples.

Example 1: Voter fraud is rampant. Lack of a robust validation system leads to a significant illegal voting. Voter ID laws are implemented to remedy this.

This would not be a racist policy because it is clearly being done to combat an actual, verifiable problem in the election system. In this scenario, I would hope a good legislature would address the concerns of the black electorate and take steps to make sure black communities have an easier time getting the required documentation, but no, not racist.

Is saying "I think it makes sense to make people show ID to vote" racist? Of course not, and actually something I'd be 100% behind if the government mailed everyone a free ID that they could use.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 08:16:24 AM
A voter ID requirement in combination with mailing voter ID's to everyone would be acceptable. If it could be implemented in some other way that does not deter any eligible voters from turning out, it would be fine.
Works for me.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 08:20:39 AM
Agreed, if the barriers are unreasonable.  Various poll taxes and "literacy" tests are good examples of unreasonable barriers.  But one doesn't get the right to vote more than once per election, and at minimum has to meet constitutional conditions.  Thus, reasonable methods to ensure compliance seem...reasonable.

If you're going to put up barriers to voting, you'd better have a damn good reason. There is no widespread evidence of people double voting, or voting without meeting the conditions under the current system.

Given the North Carolina case, and the other cases that sherr pointed out, I don't think an honest person would come to the conclusion that the laws proposed and enacted by Republican state legislatures constitute

reasonable methods to ensure compliance

I totally agree, in principle, with what you said earlier. That honest discussion and understanding requires acknowledging subjective differences and considering different assumptions that each side brings to the table. But taking as gospel, that voter ID is about reasonable methods to ensure compliance is being charitable to a fault when many contemporary examples show otherwise.

Assuming that someone is making an argument in good faith when the evidence suggests that they are not doesn't make political discourse more honest. Quite the opposite.

Voter id discussion predates Trump.  If the question is "does Trump spout incorrect statements on a regular basis?" the answer is yes.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything Trump supports is wrong, or that everything he opposes is right.

You're right. Voter ID does predate Trump, as does dishonesty regarding what voting restrictions are intended to do. Trump turned the dishonesty up to 11 though.

I disagree with Trump on a great number of things, but sure, he can support or oppose a policy for which his position could be supported by facts and reason. He doesn't personally do this though. He lies all the time and is often incoherent and inconsistent.

So we either have to do one of two things. We have to take everything he says with good faith and with the best intentions in mind, which I believe is an objectively stupid thing to do. Or we have to rely on "Trump Whisperers". People who will say, "When he says (lies about) this, he actually means this."

This is an extremely difficult way of having political discourse. His lying, incoherence, and inconsistency was easily observable in 2015 and prior, but Republicans still made him the head of the party. And Republicans still overwhelmingly (89%) support him.

Because of this, I think it is wrong to characterize all sides as sharing equal blame for the poor state of political discourse in the United States. Conservatives tolerate and echo this type of dishonesty and bad faith at all levels. It seems like a waste of time, by and large, to assume they're even interested in good faith discussions. So it resorts to game theory and shutdowns.

This doesn't mean liberal democrats can't and don't do dishonest and politically craven things. But we don't have to pretend that all sides are equal here. One side is clearly worse at this.

Do you think voter ID is inherently bad, or is it a reasonable idea in theory that has been implemented poorly in some cases?

I could see supporting voter ID in a word where there was a empirically demonstrated need for voter ID. Otherwise, I err on the side of, "don't make it hard to vote".
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 08:21:30 AM
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
Not.

Because the country with the single largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) was not included.
Let's say I'm the president.  I say 'White people have oppressed others for too long.  In order to even things out, I'm going to tax all people in the country with a mostly white sounding name (Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Davis, Miller, Wilson, etc.) at 90%.

You would argue that I'm not implementing a racist policy because some black people probably have those last names too?
This is getting into angels dancing on pin heads territory, but ok....

Your analogy would be more apt had you excluded the most common names, just as Trump's measure excluded the nation with the most Muslims.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: the_fixer on February 26, 2019, 08:27:23 AM



Also... what?
Quote
Obama was our first black president which is great (I disagree with many of his policies but I'm glad we had a black president).  But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).

Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.  His divisiveness was his mixed-race blackness and the fact he forced your nation to look at its racist past and present.  That division was always there.  But his election coincided with the ubiquity of cell phones capturing racism and forcing white people to face it.  He didn't divided your nation - he made your white people notice how shittily the country treated black people.

You want to have an honest, non-emotional discussion and you put "Obama's divisiveness" in your opening statement?

Toque.

Wow and from a moderator no less...

Your view of the citizens of the US is in no way reality and quite honestly offensive and rude.





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 26, 2019, 08:33:35 AM
  The system is dying and rotting and feels fraudulent and we aren't sure where to direct our rage...

(I've truncated the quote, but my response is to your entire post.)

I get that a lot of people feel like this, but I don't agree. I think now is the best time it's every been to be alive, and the general trend continues to be up.

You mention the press being largely owned by a few powerful people, but this has always been the case. The fact that we're so aware of it now actually suggests progress on this front to me. And we have many robust non-profit, publicly funded, or independent sources. That's not to say there aren't massive structural issues in the news media, but I'm doubtful you could point to a time outside our lifetimes when the situation was any better.

I am concerned about the long term impacts of growing economic inequality, but it is important to remember that life has gotten better for almost every segment of western society over the last 100 years. One of the basic points that MMM makes is that the "bare minimum" middle class lifestyle in America is, in fact, an astonishing life of opulent luxury. The difference in what a "poverty line" lifestyle looked like in 1950 vs now is incredible. If nothing else, a person living in the modern world has access to the richest array of information and art ever available to any member of humanity.

That's not to say there aren't risks, or there aren't serious problems to be dealt with. But, in my opinion, a rational perspective should be based to the the understanding that we've had a huge number of successes on which we can build.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2019, 08:33:47 AM
One thing that I've noticed about this conversation is we're talking about fiscal and social conservatism/liberalism as if they're the same thing.

I think that there are valid points to be made on both sides of fiscal liberalism/conservatism.  They're different approaches to economic theory and government spending, and while I certainly don't agree with everything (on either side) there are compelling (and logical) arguments made.

It's a bit of a different argument on the social conservatism/liberalism side.  Social liberals seem to have been right pretty consistently through history.  Social conservatives liked slavery, they fought against interracial marriage, they fought against equal rights for black people, and continue to attempt to deny black people the ability to vote.  They are currently or have in the past fought against women voting, women in the workplace, women's right to divorce, against women's access to birth control, abortion, and most women's rights in general.  Social conservatives have pushed for making gay acts illegal, opposed gay marriage,  and currently oppose trans-gendered people using the bathroom they feel most comfortable it.  Social conservatives have repeatedly been a roadblock for education, demanding that lies (religious based "science") be taught alongside real science, and opposing sex ed.  Social conservatives tend to be religiously motivated, but also tend to believe that whatever religion they happen follow is the right one, and often attempt to suppress practice and growth of other religions.

It is very hard for me to see socially conservative arguments as being equally valid.  Most of them just seem mean spirited and unfair, based upon fear, doctrine, and/or pettiness.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 08:34:23 AM
So we either have to do one of two things. We have to take everything he says with good faith and with the best intentions in mind, which I believe is an objectively stupid thing to do.
Agreed.
Quote
Or we have to rely on "Trump Whisperers". People who will say, "When he says (lies about) this, he actually means this."
Or ignore pretty much everything he says, and focus instead on what policies are being enacted.  Of course, there is plenty of room to debate the policies themselves. ;)

Quote
This doesn't mean liberal democrats can't and don't do dishonest and politically craven things. But we don't have to pretend that all sides are equal here. One side is clearly worse at this.
I agree that we don't have to pretend. :)

Quote
I could see supporting voter ID in a word where there was a empirically demonstrated need for voter ID. Otherwise, I err on the side of, "don't make it hard to vote".
Agreed.  But now we have to define "hard."  I think Democrats are missing an opportunity to co-opt the issue from Republicans.  E.g., say "we agree with Republicans that voter ID is a good idea.  Consequently, we propose legislation to provide a free voter ID to all eligible people."
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: madgeylou on February 26, 2019, 08:35:34 AM
Is there anyone else to completely avoids or disengages from any conversation or article once you hear or read general statements about liberals or conservatives or democrats or republicans?

I react to those statements just like I react to someone calling someone racist instead of addressing a problem.

I don't know the political parties of any of my coworkers, friends, or family. If I did find out, I'd ignore it, and probably forget it almost instantly. It's not a way I want to classify a person. If someone does something stupid or has a stupid policy, the action or policy is stupid.

All divisive language turns me off. Fine. If you just want to throw shit at people, let's have a shit fight. We'll both be covered in shit and nothing will be better. If you want to actually talk about possible solutions to all the problems we have as humans, then let's discuss the actual problems, causes, solutions.

Just because you don't like a word, doesn't mean it's divisive.

Part of the reason it's so hard to have conversations with so many Republicans at this point in history because of BS like this -- they are more concerned with white folks being called racist than with the actual suffering borne by black people, caused by actual racist policies and attitudes.

Being called racist is not the worst thing that can happen to a person, especially not when compared to being thrown in prison, killed by police, denied medical care, prevented from accumulating generational wealth, etc. All of the data show that black folks suffer worse outcomes than whites in almost all areas of life. In the face of this, to get your panties knotted up about the use of the word "racist" -- even when it's CLEARLY accurate, such in the case of our illustrious leader -- speaks to a lack of empathy and perspective that is both remarkably selfish and, sadly, common as dirt in the Republican party.

Until Republicans start listening to facts and thinking about how other people experience the world, they are going to continue to come across as greedy and short-sighted. Because they are.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2019, 08:40:13 AM
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
Not.

Because the country with the single largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) was not included.
Let's say I'm the president.  I say 'White people have oppressed others for too long.  In order to even things out, I'm going to tax all people in the country with a mostly white sounding name (Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Davis, Miller, Wilson, etc.) at 90%.

You would argue that I'm not implementing a racist policy because some black people probably have those last names too?
This is getting into angels dancing on pin heads territory, but ok....

Your analogy would be more apt had you excluded the most common names, just as Trump's measure excluded the nation with the most Muslims.

Either way, my point was clear . . . but you haven't answered my question.  You don't believe that the white name tax is racist (even though the president explicitly said he was doing it for racist reasons) because it will impact some people who aren't white?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: fuzzy math on February 26, 2019, 08:40:28 AM

Do you think voter ID is inherently bad, or is it a reasonable idea in theory that has been implemented poorly in some cases?

Its a reasonable idea in theory but we can't talk about it at all without bringing up a lot of racial issues which cause a large segment of the population to freak out about possibly feeling like they're being labeled racist (see above about Obama's presence making ppl feel bad). So it forces the Democratic party to not speak about the actual issues and take a hard line stance in support of the disenfranchised. When we talk about people who can't get an ID there is a huge racial component. Some people lack a birth certificate to get an ID. This represents a cost. Some people actually were never issued a birth certificate. This represents cost and time and in some cases submitting to a system that is inherently untrustworthy to some people for many (including racial) reasons.

Actual non discriminatory solutions to voter ID legislation would require mandatory compliance with the following:

1) Free ID, dispensed at locations convenient and times convenient to people with no access to transportation and people who work shitty unpredictable jobs.

2) Expanding voter registration, making it opt out instead of opt in so people who have been disinfranchised for any number of reasons now have a much lower burden to vote

3) Expanding polling times, allowing early voting and mail in voting. Again accommodating people with no access to transportation and/or shitty working hours.

There are a million reasons that this will never happen, most of them having to do with the fact that one party blatantly gains an advantage when these things are restricted instead of expanded.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 08:41:48 AM
Agreed.  But now we have to define "hard."  I think Democrats are missing an opportunity to co-opt the issue from Republicans.  E.g., say "we agree with Republicans that voter ID is a good idea.  Consequently, we propose legislation to provide a free voter ID to all eligible people."

I could be on board with a system that added no friction to the current process, but such a system would be difficult and expensive to come up with.

Even something that seems super comprehensive, like driving out to people's homes, taking a picture, and making an ID on the spot, would have holes. As sherr pointed out, many Native Americans don't have traditional street addresses. And if you're a renter, your address may possibly change with a new lease every year. So if your photo ID address has to match your current address, that's a huge barrier that dis-proportionally affects renters (poorer people by and large) much more than it affects homeowners (richer people).

And homeless people have no address. They're still citizens though. They're still entitled to participate in the political process and to have their concerns heard.

If you could implement voter ID in a way that has no impact on turnout across the board, I guess I wouldn't oppose it. But given that voter fraud isn't a demonstrable problem, I wouldn't personally spend public funds or political capital doing this.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2019, 08:46:46 AM
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

However, I would definitely be 100% on board with it IF it was a part of a national campaign to give all people a free, legal ID once they reach the age of 18, which would serve as government ID for purposes of opening bank accounts, proof of identity in any and all contexts, etc.

Because there are many people in this country who do not have this -- and in many parts of the country (rural, for example) obtaining an ID is a process that requires time and money -- and in some instances, proof of identity that not everyone has. This would be a win-win for everyone, make *more* people able to vote more easily, and solve the "problem" that people who are so afraid of voter fraud are worried about. And at least it would mean we'd stop talking about it.

This, however, is not what voter ID is about.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: fuzzy math on February 26, 2019, 08:46:57 AM
Agreed.  But now we have to define "hard."  I think Democrats are missing an opportunity to co-opt the issue from Republicans.  E.g., say "we agree with Republicans that voter ID is a good idea.  Consequently, we propose legislation to provide a free voter ID to all eligible people."

I could be on board with a system that added no friction to the current process, but such a system would be difficult and expensive to come up with.

Even something that seems super comprehensive, like driving out to people's homes, taking a picture, and making an ID on the spot, would have holes. As sherr pointed out, many Native Americans don't have traditional street addresses. And if you're a renter, your address may possibly change with a new lease every year. So if your photo ID address has to match your current address, that's a huge barrier that dis-proportionally affects renters (poorer people by and large) much more than it affects homeowners (richer people).

And homeless people have no address. They're still citizens though. They're still entitled to participate in the political process and to have their concerns heard.

If you could implement voter ID in a way that has no impact on turnout across the board, I guess I wouldn't oppose it. But given that voter fraud isn't a demonstrable problem, I wouldn't personally spend public funds or political capital doing this.

It would also cause the Fox News screaming word orifices to make people panic that the GOVT IS COMING TO YOUR DOOR TO GET YOU.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ministashy on February 26, 2019, 08:47:07 AM
In answer to your original question--why does it have to be this way?  I find this piece sums it up perfectly: 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_us_59519811e4b0f078efd98440 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_us_59519811e4b0f078efd98440)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 08:49:44 AM
- Banning people from Muslim countries from legally crossing into your own country (and referring to this as a 'Muslim ban')
Not.

Because the country with the single largest population of Muslims (Indonesia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country) was not included.
Let's say I'm the president.  I say 'White people have oppressed others for too long.  In order to even things out, I'm going to tax all people in the country with a mostly white sounding name (Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Davis, Miller, Wilson, etc.) at 90%.

You would argue that I'm not implementing a racist policy because some black people probably have those last names too?
This is getting into angels dancing on pin heads territory, but ok....

Your analogy would be more apt had you excluded the most common names, just as Trump's measure excluded the nation with the most Muslims.

Either way, my point was clear . . . but you haven't answered my question.  You don't believe that the white name tax is racist (even though the president explicitly said he was doing it for racist reasons) because it will impact some people who aren't white?
No, I wouldn't believe a tax that affected only ~8% of whites is a "white tax," just as I don't believe a travel ban that affected only ~8% of the world's Muslims is a Muslim ban.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Eric on February 26, 2019, 08:57:34 AM
Agreed.  But now we have to define "hard."  I think Democrats are missing an opportunity to co-opt the issue from Republicans.  E.g., say "we agree with Republicans that voter ID is a good idea.  Consequently, we propose legislation to provide a free voter ID to all eligible people."

I could be on board with a system that added no friction to the current process, but such a system would be difficult and expensive to come up with.

Even something that seems super comprehensive, like driving out to people's homes, taking a picture, and making an ID on the spot, would have holes. As sherr pointed out, many Native Americans don't have traditional street addresses. And if you're a renter, your address may possibly change with a new lease every year. So if your photo ID address has to match your current address, that's a huge barrier that dis-proportionally affects renters (poorer people by and large) much more than it affects homeowners (richer people).

And homeless people have no address. They're still citizens though. They're still entitled to participate in the political process and to have their concerns heard.

If you could implement voter ID in a way that has no impact on turnout across the board, I guess I wouldn't oppose it. But given that voter fraud isn't a demonstrable problem, I wouldn't personally spend public funds or political capital doing this.

It would also cause the Fox News screaming word orifices to make people panic that the GOVT IS COMING TO YOUR DOOR TO GET YOU.

They don't need a "cause" for that to happen.  They do it whenever there's nothing else to talk about already.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on February 26, 2019, 09:08:54 AM
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
: white supremacists
: people who talk about getting their guns to get the "coon" out of the henhouse or whatever
: people whose children made monkey noises when describing the president
: people who just wouldn't vote for a non-white person

... then you have a large portion of racists in your country.  They're loud, and they're divisive, and you can't blame that on the African American who was in the oval office.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on February 26, 2019, 09:09:17 AM
In answer to your original question--why does it have to be this way?  I find this piece sums it up perfectly: 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_us_59519811e4b0f078efd98440 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_us_59519811e4b0f078efd98440)

I'm not sure if you're posting this because you agree with the article or if you're presenting it as evidence of the divide. In any case, I think the view taken in this article is the opposite of reality. Assuming that the other side disagrees because they don't care about other people? That is very closed minded.

In the first example she concludes that if someone isn't willing to raise the minimum wage to $15 then they don't care if the workers can feed their family. Has she considered that some people are against raising the minimum wage for economic reasons? Or because an increased minimum wage will push employers toward automation leaving their employees with no income at all?

Personally, I am torn on the issue of raising the minimum wage but I generally lean towards an increase. But regardless of my feelings, I can see why someone would reasonably support either view.

It's as if the author thinks everyone has seen and accurately assessed all of the same studies and data as she has, but came to a different conclusion because they don't care about other people. Chances are, the vast majority of voters do not take the time to research the issues and even when they do there is plenty of illegitimate "research" to support most any view.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on February 26, 2019, 09:11:37 AM
I came of age in the 1990s when Conservative and Liberals were generally much more willing to work with one another than today, so the current political environment is shocking and disturbing to me.

For all the nastiness in the 1990s with Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary and getting impeached by the House for it (which never really made much sense to me from a legal standpoint), the GOP was still willing to work with him on compromise legislation that allowed the government to function and made the economy keep humming along. Now, everybody on both sides of the aisle is completely unwilling to even listen to what the other side has to say about anything and forget compromise. Instead, we have both sides making ultimatums to each other and calling each other "Nazis" or "Communists". And ordinary people across the political spectrum are suffering for it as we saw during the recent government shutdown.

I am certainly not conservative, but am glad that Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual impropriety.  He abused his position of authority and did something not just wrong, but illegal.  While generally I was a fan of his policies, allowing people in power to get away with illegal actions is not just wrong but extremely dangerous.  The president certainly shouldn't be above the law, regardless of which side he is on.

1) Clinton's sexual impropriety should have never even come up in the national political debate and 2) though a lie is abhorrent, in this case impeachment was not the correct path (maybe censure, but again the topic was irrelevant as it was a consensual relationship*). To prove the point, Trump has had far more sexual improprieties and lies, but has not been impeached, as is also the case with many other presidents and politicians who have come before.

*Though Monica Lewinsky no longer seems to think it was consensual due to the power dynamic, but that is a topic for another thread.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 26, 2019, 09:12:28 AM
Thanks everyone for having an open discussion and keeping it fairly civil.  It's been an interesting read.  There are a few things that stand out to me.  Some of them I already knew and others make sense but I hadn't thought of them exactly that way. 

One major issue we have is that people on both sides believe vastly different "facts" which are reported differently from various sources.  (ex: do we have a problem with voter fraud?)  We all get our "facts" from different sources and it's easy to believe polls stories that support your own beliefs.  If you believe those "facts" then it's going to be difficult for someone with a different set of beliefs and "facts" to change your mind. 

I was honestly surprised to be challenged on the fact that most mainstream news sources have a liberal bias.  When I watch most channels (CNN, ABC, CBS, etc) and see what is reported/not reported as well as how it's reported it's clear to me that the station has a different perspective/bias than me.  It shouldn't be a surprise to me that people whose views align with those stations don't see it as biased, but I hadn't thought of it that way.  (Even though my views are closer to Fox News I'm not a big fan of that channel either.)

Obviously, both sides believe the other side "started it" but just about everyone can agree that both parties are playing dirty at this point.  As was stated above, neither has the moral high ground.  That seems VERY obvious and VERY sad. 

Mathlete said "...even if you’re a fan of Donald Trump, you would have to see that says incredibly stupid, petty, and offensive things on almost a daily basis."  I agree with this totally and that is WHY I'm not a fan. 

GuitarStv made a list and asked for examples of what is and is not real racism?  See my comments below:
- Paying someone less because of their race -Racist
- Marching in street carrying a Nazi flag, shouting that Jews and blacks must die -RACIST
- Calling Mexican immigrants rapists, when crimes committed by immigrants are significantly lower than those committed by natural born Americans-I'm not sure the context of this.  If it was a general comment about Mexicans then that is racist.  If it's citing statistics about ILLEGAL aliens committing crimes then it may not be although he probably didn't need to specify Mexican. 
- Calling your local (all white) high school sports team 'The Indians' and performing a tomahawk chop in the crowd while attending the game-Not racist (I don't see it as meant negatively towards Indians) but maybe poor taste if the actual Indians are offended. 
- Crossing the street because you see a black guy- Racist if you are crossing because he is black.  Not racist if he is acting suspicious and you are protecting yourself from being mugged. 
- Implementing laws that make it harder for minorities to vote- It makes sense to verify identity before someone votes.  Unfairly targeting because of race is a problem.
- Flying a confederate flag in front of your house- Many people don't mean this as racist when they do it but many blacks perceive it as racist.  I'm going with not racist in most cases (intent of the person doing it) but in poor taste and something I would certainly not do. 
- Implementing drug laws and procedures that disproportionately impact people of color- Drug laws should be designed to solve a problem and not targeted at a specific race.  They may disproportionately impact people of color without being racist if there is a disproportionate problem with those people.  This should definitely not be the goal. 
- Calling African countries 'shithole countries'- Very poor taste and not acceptable for a president.  Did he call them that because they are not nice countries or because they are primarily black?  I think he would call certain places in my area "shithole counties" and they are predominantly white.  So, not racist but not right either. 
- Throwing someone's resume in the garbage because they have a stereotypically black name- Racist
Basically, I want to see everyone treated the same regardless of race.  We should be color blind in how we treat people.  That does become difficult sometimes because many stereotypes have some basis in truth.  I'm also in favor of programs that help the less privileged get opportunities.  Then it's up to them to seize those opportunities and they should be treated just like anyone else. 

Watchmaker asked "@ericrugiero, just a prompt for further discussion--how do you approach disagreement? Are you as kind, open-minded, fair, generous, and collaborative as you can be?"  I try to be, but of course we all fall short sometimes.  Most people that know me would say that I do tend to fit that description for the most part. 

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2019, 09:24:54 AM
GuitarStv made a list and asked for examples of what is and is not real racism?  See my comments below:
- Calling Mexican immigrants rapists, when crimes committed by immigrants are significantly lower than those committed by natural born Americans-I'm not sure the context of this.  If it was a general comment about Mexicans then that is racist.  If it's citing statistics about ILLEGAL aliens committing crimes then it may not be although he probably didn't need to specify Mexican. 
- Calling your local (all white) high school sports team 'The Indians' and performing a tomahawk chop in the crowd while attending the game-Not racist (I don't see it as meant negatively towards Indians) but maybe poor taste if the actual Indians are offended. 
- Crossing the street because you see a black guy- Racist if you are crossing because he is black.  Not racist if he is acting suspicious and you are protecting yourself from being mugged.
- Implementing laws that make it harder for minorities to vote- It makes sense to verify identity before someone votes.  Unfairly targeting because of race is a problem.
- Flying a confederate flag in front of your house- Many people don't mean this as racist when they do it but many blacks perceive it as racist.  I'm going with not racist in most cases (intent of the person doing it) but in poor taste and something I would certainly not do. 
- Implementing drug laws and procedures that disproportionately impact people of color- Drug laws should be designed to solve a problem and not targeted at a specific race.  They may disproportionately impact people of color without being racist if there is a disproportionate problem with those people.  This should definitely not be the goal.
- Calling African countries 'shithole countries'- Very poor taste and not acceptable for a president.  Did he call them that because they are not nice countries or because they are primarily black?  I think he would call certain places in my area "shithole counties" and they are predominantly white.  So, not racist but not right either. 

Basically, I want to see everyone treated the same regardless of race.  We should be color blind in how we treat people.  That does become difficult sometimes because many stereotypes have some basis in truth.  I'm also in favor of programs that help the less privileged get opportunities.  Then it's up to them to seize those opportunities and they should be treated just like anyone else. 

I don't necessarily agree with all of your posted reasons here (and think that there's room to debate), but also believe that we're close enough on the most important parts that we can get along.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 09:28:26 AM
Perhaps a little recent humor: Never Give Reasons - Dilbert Comic Strip on 2019-02-25 | Dilbert by Scott Adams (https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-25)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: madgeylou on February 26, 2019, 09:35:09 AM
Anyone who thinks that Voter ID laws are not racist, and that efforts to restrict voting should be considered in good faith should read just the first chapter of this book: https://www.amazon.com/One-Person-Vote-Suppression-Destroying/dp/1635571375

History shows us that state lawmakers are very skilled and not at all bashful about using any and all means at their disposal to prevent black people from voting. This is a huge reason why we need the Voting Rights Act (2016 was the first election in 50 years that we didn't have its protections, and we see what happened) -- which was established specifically because the past behavior of many states show that they cannot be trusted to not use their power in order to disenfranchise black people.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 26, 2019, 09:37:57 AM
One major issue we have is that people on both sides believe vastly different "facts" which are reported differently from various sources.  (ex: do we have a problem with voter fraud?)  We all get our "facts" from different sources and it's easy to believe polls stories that support your own beliefs.  If you believe those "facts" then it's going to be difficult for someone with a different set of beliefs and "facts" to change your mind. 

I believe in objective truth. There are different ways to view the same facts, different reasonable conclusions that can be reached on how best to solve problems. But there are objectively true facts and objectively false lies. The problem with both-siderisms is that they ignore that the vast majority of the flat-out lies are coming from one side, to the point where conservatives now consider all attempts "fact check" or "filter blatant propaganda from the news feeds" to be politically biased.

I was honestly surprised to be challenged on the fact that most mainstream news sources have a liberal bias.  When I watch most channels (CNN, ABC, CBS, etc) and see what is reported/not reported as well as how it's reported it's clear to me that the station has a different perspective/bias than me.  It shouldn't be a surprise to me that people whose views align with those stations don't see it as biased, but I hadn't thought of it that way.  (Even though my views are closer to Fox News I'm not a big fan of that channel either.) 

Every person and therefore every news source will have a bias, the difference is that most News sources try to stick to neutrality but "conservative news sources" intentionally lean-in to their bias. Cable News is mostly an entertainment show, but things like PBS and NPR are incredibly neutral, and yet conservatives ignore them and call them "the liberal mainstream media". If you want to test this, get your news from some external source like the BBC and see which side it aligns with more in terms of tone.

Obviously, both sides believe the other side "started it" but just about everyone can agree that both parties are playing dirty at this point.  As was stated above, neither has the moral high ground.  That seems VERY obvious and VERY sad. 

Have you read that article I linked on Newt Gingrich (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/)? I keep harping on it because I think it's incredibly important if we are going to understand how we arrived where we are. We can talk about "both-siderisms" all day long, but when you have one side that is openly and proudly claiming to have started it, well, I guess I'll take their word for it.

And yes, I absolutely think that the Democratic party has the moral high ground in almost every respect. They are not perfect but at least they are trying, which is a lot more than what I can say for the Republicans.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 26, 2019, 09:50:05 AM
Perhaps a little recent humor: Never Give Reasons - Dilbert Comic Strip on 2019-02-25 | Dilbert by Scott Adams (https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-25)

Scott Adams is an open Trump supporter who constantly contorts himself through logical gymnastics in order to explain away and support everything Trump does or says. He was one of Trumps first and loudest proponents during the primary campaign, and would constantly say things like (paraphrase) "who cares if what Trump is saying is a blatant racist lie, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it will motivate people to vote for him." Which I guess is true in an objective manner of speaking, but he would say it to imply that that was a good thing and as it should be. It's more blatant in his blog.

So you see humor, I see him intentionally training Trump supporters how to disingenuously engage in intellectually dishonest debates, spread misinformation, and emotionally manipulate people in order do win. Because winning is what's important, not being right or honestly engaging in constructive debate. I guess he's a lot like Trump and Gingrich and Bannon in that respect. And that's why we are where we are RE political discourse in the US.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 09:52:25 AM
Perhaps a little recent humor: Never Give Reasons - Dilbert Comic Strip on 2019-02-25 | Dilbert by Scott Adams (https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-25)

Scott Adams is an open Trump supporter who constantly contorts himself through logical gymnastics in order to explain away and support everything Trump does or says. He was one of Trumps first and loudest proponents during the primary campaign, and would constantly say things like (paraphrase) "who cares if what Trump is saying is a blatant racist lie, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it will motivate people to vote for him." Which I guess is true in an objective manner of speaking, but he would say it to imply that that was a good thing and as it should be. It's more blatant in his blog.

So you see humor, I see him intentionally training Trump supporters how to disingenuously engage in intellectually dishonest debates, spread misinformation, and emotionally manipulate people in order do win. Because winning is what's important, not being right or honestly engaging in constructive debate. I guess he's a lot like Trump and Gingrich and Bannon in that respect. And that's why we are where we are RE political discourse in the US.

It's upsetting that we have to interpret what should be a cute comic that way, but I came to the same conclusion.

Adams is a dishonest loudmouth.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2019, 09:54:14 AM
Perhaps a little recent humor: Never Give Reasons - Dilbert Comic Strip on 2019-02-25 | Dilbert by Scott Adams (https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-25)

Scott Adams is an open Trump supporter who constantly contorts himself through logical gymnastics in order to explain away and support everything Trump does or says. He was one of Trumps first and loudest proponents during the primary campaign, and would constantly say things like (paraphrase) "who cares if what Trump is saying is a blatant racist lie, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it will motivate people to vote for him." Which I guess is true in an objective manner of speaking, but he would say it to imply that that was a good thing and as it should be. It's more blatant in his blog.

So you see humor, I see him intentionally training Trump supporters how to disingenuously engage in intellectually dishonest debates, spread misinformation, and emotionally manipulate people in order do win. Because winning is what's important, not being right or honestly engaging in constructive debate. I guess he's a lot like Trump and Gingrich and Bannon in that respect. And that's why we are where we are RE political discourse in the US.

It's upsetting that we have to interpret what should be a cute comic that way, but I came to the same conclusion.

Adams is a dishonest loudmouth.

Yep. And an apologist for arguing in bad faith.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on February 26, 2019, 10:00:59 AM
Perhaps a little recent humor: Never Give Reasons - Dilbert Comic Strip on 2019-02-25 | Dilbert by Scott Adams (https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-25)

Scott Adams is an open Trump supporter who constantly contorts himself through logical gymnastics in order to explain away and support everything Trump does or says. He was one of Trumps first and loudest proponents during the primary campaign, and would constantly say things like (paraphrase) "who cares if what Trump is saying is a blatant racist lie, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it will motivate people to vote for him." Which I guess is true in an objective manner of speaking, but he would say it to imply that that was a good thing and as it should be. It's more blatant in his blog.

So you see humor, I see him intentionally training Trump supporters how to disingenuously engage in intellectually dishonest debates, spread misinformation, and emotionally manipulate people in order do win. Because winning is what's important, not being right or honestly engaging in constructive debate. I guess he's a lot like Trump and Gingrich and Bannon in that respect. And that's why we are where we are RE political discourse in the US.

It's upsetting that we have to interpret what should be a cute comic that way, but I came to the same conclusion.

Adams is a dishonest loudmouth.

I read "the Dilbert Principle" published by Scott Adams in 1996 and I concluded he most closely identified with Dilbert. 20 years later he has become a Dogbert. I guess the fame and fortune really got to him, another example corrupted by power.

Or maybe he was always an ass, what do I know :)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Nick_Miller on February 26, 2019, 10:23:53 AM
The GOP has become so repulsive, I don't know what else to do than fight them as hard as I can. I wish there were more nuanced choices, but there aren't. There are two sides, and you have to pick one if you want to have any chance of making a difference.

I was a Republican years ago. I've changed a lot since then, but they've changed too, and we've went in opposite directions.

Most people would be fine with having a party opposite the Dems that would push back on spending, military, regulations, etc., because healthy debate is good. But the GOP isn't interested in healthy debate. They've become the party of voter suppression, bigotry against LGBTQ and POC, religious zealotry, science denial, and worship of the top 1 percent.

I don't understand how anyone looks at that and says, "Sign me up." And almost half the country has said that. It makes me ill.

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 10:24:02 AM
I want to take a moment to highlight differences in political discourse at the highest level. To do that, I'm going to look at what is probably the biggest lie Obama told during his presidency. Politifact's 2013 Lie of the Year:

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it"

While we work through this example (if you can stand to read my wall of text :) ) try and think about Trump handling one of his daily lies in anything that remotely approaches this level of professionalism.

---

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/)

The politifact article is really good, but essentially, Obama made a promise that he couldn't keep. He may have thought the ACA Grandfathering provision would help, but he couldn't guarantee that insurers wouldn't cancel plans. It was a dumb and horribly misleading thing for him to say. Given comments by his HHS Secretary, he should have been reasonably clued in. He should have known better than to say that. And it is probable that he stretched here to look better during his re-election campaign.

But then, the bulk of the ACA law started taking effect. People got letters that their insurance was canceled. This is how Obama handled it. I'll link the whole thing because it's good, but here are some higlights.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/14/statement-president-affordable-care-act (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/14/statement-president-affordable-care-act)

He takes responsibility, and explains himself:

Quote
With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan, you can keep it, I think -- and I’ve said in interviews -- that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate.  It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.  We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.

More explanation. More responsibility taking, and a commitment to fix things:

Quote
You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population.  And our working assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower costs or the same costs in the marketplaces, and that the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them.  And it didn't.  And again, that's on us.  Which is why we’re -- that's on me.  And that's why I’m trying to fix it.

He pushes back against the ACA as a punching-bag though. He highlights that the roll out is getting insurance to more people, and talks about cooperation with Republican John Kasich towards getting more Ohioans insured:

Quote
Later today, I’ll be in Ohio, where Governor Kasich, a Republican, has expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  And as many as 275,000 Ohioans will ultimately be better off because of it.  And if every governor followed suit, another 5.4 million Americans could gain access to health care next year.

And ACA has aged well after it's rough start. Kaiser shows that it has reduced uninsured numbers dramatically.

(https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/8848-06-figure-1.png?w=735&h=551&crop=1)

And it's actually become a fairly popular policy: https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=all (https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=all)

I still have major criticisms to make on ACA, but it was a good start. And the Democrats seemed committed to fixing some of the issues with it. Republicans spent 7 years railing on it though. Often times spreading misinformation about it. And when they finally held both chambers and the Presidency, they had full reign to make something better.

They couldn't come up with a single proposal that didn't result in CBO projections showing people losing health insurance by the millions.

Given that, I feel pretty good about concluding that most Republicans working against the ACA during Obama's presidency, were doing so in bad faith.

And just as an aside, John Kasich, the Republican governer who expanded Medicaid in Ohio under ACA, and who Obama talked about cooperation with, is one Republican who came out looking pretty great through all this Trump stuff. He didn't compromise on decency and fact-based discussion in the way that his other colleagues did. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Since the passage of ACA, Ohio's uninsured rate has been cut in half, and is well below the national average.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 10:27:08 AM
This is not to heap praise on Obama. I have a lot of problems with Obama. Libya and Syria top the list. But he was an effective executive. And he set a tone of rational discussion. A tone that Republican leaders in congress seldom matched.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2019, 10:48:07 AM
I want to take a moment to highlight differences in political discourse at the highest level. To do that, I'm going to look at what is probably the biggest lie Obama told during his presidency. Politifact's 2013 Lie of the Year:

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it"

While we work through this example (if you can stand to read my wall of text :) ) try and think about Trump handling one of his daily lies in anything that remotely approaches this level of professionalism.

---

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/)

The politifact article is really good, but essentially, Obama made a promise that he couldn't keep. He may have thought the ACA Grandfathering provision would help, but he couldn't guarantee that insurers wouldn't cancel plans. It was a dumb and horribly misleading thing for him to say. Given comments by his HHS Secretary, he should have been reasonably clued in. He should have known better than to say that. And it is probable that he stretched here to look better during his re-election campaign.

But then, the bulk of the ACA law started taking effect. People got letters that their insurance was canceled. This is how Obama handled it. I'll link the whole thing because it's good, but here are some higlights.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/14/statement-president-affordable-care-act (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/14/statement-president-affordable-care-act)

He takes responsibility, and explains himself:

Quote
With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan, you can keep it, I think -- and I’ve said in interviews -- that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate.  It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.  We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.

More explanation. More responsibility taking, and a commitment to fix things:

Quote
You have an individual market that accounts for about 5 percent of the population.  And our working assumption was -- my working assumption was that the majority of those folks would find better policies at lower costs or the same costs in the marketplaces, and that the universe of folks who potentially would not find a better deal in the marketplaces, the grandfather clause would work sufficiently for them.  And it didn't.  And again, that's on us.  Which is why we’re -- that's on me.  And that's why I’m trying to fix it.

He pushes back against the ACA as a punching-bag though. He highlights that the roll out is getting insurance to more people, and talks about cooperation with Republican John Kasich towards getting more Ohioans insured:

Quote
Later today, I’ll be in Ohio, where Governor Kasich, a Republican, has expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  And as many as 275,000 Ohioans will ultimately be better off because of it.  And if every governor followed suit, another 5.4 million Americans could gain access to health care next year.

And ACA has aged well after it's rough start. Kaiser shows that it has reduced uninsured numbers dramatically.

(https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/8848-06-figure-1.png?w=735&h=551&crop=1)

And it's actually become a fairly popular policy: https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=all (https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=all)

I still have major criticisms to make on ACA, but it was a good start. And the Democrats seemed committed to fixing some of the issues with it. Republicans spent 7 years railing on it though. Often times spreading misinformation about it. And when they finally held both chambers and the Presidency, they had full reign to make something better.

They couldn't come up with a single proposal that didn't result in CBO projections showing people losing health insurance by the millions.

Given that, I feel pretty good about concluding that most Republicans working against the ACA during Obama's presidency, were doing so in bad faith.

And just as an aside, John Kasich, the Republican governer who expanded Medicaid in Ohio under ACA, and who Obama talked about cooperation with, is one Republican who came out looking pretty great through all this Trump stuff. He didn't compromise on decency and fact-based discussion in the way that his other colleagues did. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Since the passage of ACA, Ohio's uninsured rate has been cut in half, and is well below the national average.

This.

The "both sides do it" whatabouters love to cite Obama's "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" "lie."

I put the word "lie" in quotes. Because a lie is an intentional untruth.

Obama's statement ended up not being true. But, for the reasons he stated.

He did not deliberately set out to mislead the public.

And it's always struck me as hilarious that this is the "lie" they always trot out.

Because they apparently can only find one.

One thing they can label as a lie. In eight years.

Whereas with Trump, if he lies only once a day, it's a remarkably honest day for him.

"Both sides do it."

Sure.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 10:52:17 AM
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2019, 11:03:21 AM
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.

I guess that's why there were four other categories posted to make up the 15% (that you forgot to quote).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 11:07:19 AM
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.

I guess that's why there were four other categories posted to make up the 15% (that you forgot to quote).
There is a difference between "forgot to quote" vs. "don't know about the other items".

If you have accurate numbers for the others, please provide.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on February 26, 2019, 11:08:39 AM
Obama was only divisive in that a large portion of your country are obviously all-out racist pieces of crap.

I'll amend this, carefully, to explain that "large portion" means "relatively large, considering we're talking about racism here", not "the vast majority" of the country.  What's "large" for racism?

If 15% of your country belongs to the the group of:
: outright Klansmen
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.

The other categories are definitely higher.

4% of the population were willing to say, out loud, that they would never vote for a black candidate.
You have to wonder what percentage are smart enough not to say it out loud, or are just unaware of the bias that will prevent them from ever favouring such a candidate.
40% said they would never vote for a Muslim (which explains the push to "accuse" Obama of secretly being a Muslim)

Yes, that's a religion, not a race, but I think we know what's going on.

Toque
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on February 26, 2019, 11:24:11 AM
Don't know about the other items in your list, but according to Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) that first item accounts for a whopping 0.001%.
The other categories are definitely higher.
I can believe that. :)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: robartsd on February 26, 2019, 11:25:32 AM
From an Australian perspective, the extremes of the conservative fringe, and the left/green fringe have been kept at bay largely because of our compulsory voting system. 

It's hard to get elected on a base of 25% of the population when 87% of the population turns out and votes (91% of registered voters and an all time low last election).

It's also hard to get elected with extreme policies when the voting system is not first past the post.

Maybe electoral reform could help the US with the extremity of it's current political debate.
I agree that our system seems to encourage the more extreme positions. I'd start by eliminating partisan primaries. If parties want to make an effort to unite behind a candidate before an official election in which all voters have a say, they can do it on their own - there's no need for public subsidy of party decisions.

I'd like a way to rank candidates rather than having to pick just one. This would allow me to express who may favorite candidate is without risking "throwing away my vote" on a candidate who has "no chance of being elected". I think we might find a lot of centrist "no chance of being elected" candidates do much better than initially predicted. I'd be satisfied with a single transferable vote system, but would prefer range voting system.

I'd also like to see multi-seat legislative districts with voting systems designed such that the representatives elected each represent the views of a different set of voters within the district. This would help neutralize gerrymandering. For most local governments, the entire body would be a single district. For most states, each county would be a district, for the House of Representatives many states would be a single district (perhaps states with more than 5 representatives could choose to create multiple districts with 3-5 seats per district).

The GOP has become so repulsive, I don't know what else to do than fight them as hard as I can. I wish there were more nuanced choices, but there aren't. There are two sides, and you have to pick one if you want to have any chance of making a difference.
Or work to change the system that promotes there only being two sides - but neither of the two sides who benefit from the current system will support this.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 12:12:49 PM
robartsd, I would LOVE ranked choice voting.

They did it in Maine for the 2018 election:

http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work (http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work)

I hope to see more states adopt this soon.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 26, 2019, 12:42:44 PM
Watchmaker asked "@ericrugiero, just a prompt for further discussion--how do you approach disagreement? Are you as kind, open-minded, fair, generous, and collaborative as you can be?"  I try to be, but of course we all fall short sometimes.  Most people that know me would say that I do tend to fit that description for the most part.

Great! In your original post, you said that too many people were just looking to bash on trump (paraphrasing). Mathlete made a interesting post about Obama's biggest lie, which, if you buy his argument, shows that there's a real difference in the behavior of the current and the last president. What do you think about Mathlete's point? Could it be that some rational people go after Trump  because he genuinely does more objectionable things then other presidents have?

And, if there is an asymmetry in the behavior of Obama and Trump, then wouldn't any neutral news source also, if they want to be accurate, reflect that asymmetry? Is it left leaning if NPR reports on all of Trumps lies (numerous) just as they did on Obama's lies (fewer)?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Norioch on February 26, 2019, 01:03:15 PM
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2019, 01:12:32 PM
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.

This. To a point that almost got to be infuriating sometimes. Because his willingness to believe he could somehow find a way to work with Republicans who openly said anything he was for, they opposed, felt so impossibly naive. To the point of being reminiscent of that old saw about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 26, 2019, 02:05:59 PM
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.

This. To a point that almost got to be infuriating sometimes. Because his willingness to believe he could somehow find a way to work with Republicans who openly said anything he was for, they opposed, felt so impossibly naive. To the point of being reminiscent of that old saw about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Remember the "beer summit?" Part of me rolled by eyes when he did it. But maybe it helped heal things for those 2 individuals even if it didn't help us heal as a country.

http://archive.boston.com/news/politics/gallery/073009_beer_summit_obama/
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: JZinCO on February 26, 2019, 02:08:53 PM
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.
Okay, here's a quick one.
Recess appointments (which were done knowing full well they would engender bitterness) (and did) (and were found unconstitutional in a few cases)
Did Obama do it? Yup. Did W? Yup did Clinton? Yup. It's been awhile (Reagan) since presidents had had the decency not to exercise that power.

Another: 'You didn't build that.' Remember when Obama wrote off much of America has bible thumpin idiots? Clinton seemed to think it was divisive (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4645566&page=1    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008). Just as Romney's 'takers' comment was divisive.

Oh and there are executive actions. I'll preface this by saying, it's pretty darn impossible for these NOT to be divisive (even to colleagues on the same side of the aisle). They are constructed by the President's team and don't receive the deliberation, hearings, and debate that is the domain of Congress.

edit: uggggh I just got into the pissing match of 'Your team did this'; 'What about..?';'Yeah, but your team did that'; 'But, what about..?'; ad nauseum.
Sometimes I just don't like the moral righteousness of partisans and have to speak up.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 02:39:22 PM
Okay, here's a quick one.
Recess appointments (which were done knowing full well they would engender bitterness) (and did) (and were found unconstitutional in a few cases)
Did Obama do it? Yup. Did W? Yup did Clinton? Yup. It's been awhile (Reagan) since presidents had had the decency not to exercise that power.

Another: 'You didn't build that.' Remember when Obama wrote off much of America has bible thumpin idiots? Clinton seemed to think it was divisive (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4645566&page=1    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008). Just as Romney's 'takers' comment was divisive.

Oh and there are executive actions. I'll preface this by saying, it's pretty darn impossible for these NOT to be divisive (even to colleagues on the same side of the aisle). They are constructed by the President's team and don't receive the deliberation, hearings, and debate that is the domain of Congress.

edit: uggggh I just got into the pissing match of 'Your team did this'; 'What about..?';'Yeah, but your team did that'; 'But, what about..?'; ad nauseum.
Sometimes I just don't like the moral righteousness of partisans and have to speak up.

"You didn't build that." was my first thought as well. It sat fine with me because even though I'm a successful person, I generally think "bootstrapping" and "self-made" are mostly mythology. He's right. Everyone gets help, and the most successful people get the most and the best help.

He should have had the political foresight to see how that comment would play though.

Regarding the guns and religion comment, the whole context is,

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Again, I think he's right. When the world doesn't reward struggling people with the opportunity they think they're entitled to, things get nasty. Jews were scapegoated as the cause of post-war Germany's problems just as Mexicans and Chinese manufacturing are scapegoated today. There are lots of racists and opioid addicts in the Midwest who would be perfectly pleasant people if $60K manufacturing jobs with pensions still existed.

But those comments play to academics and intellectuals. An aspiring president should choose his words more carefully.

---

Both of these examples are valid criticisms and examples of Obama being divisive. I agree. But with Obama, it is a matter of choosing his words more carefully. There is a good faith interpretation that you can make from what he says.

There is no good faith way to interpret Donald Trump spreading false propaganda about black crime. There's no good faith way to interpret him saying that an American judge can't be impartial because he's Mexican. There's no good faith way to interpret moving on women "like a bitch" and grabbing their pussies without permission.

Not even in the same stratosphere of divisiveness.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Nickel on February 26, 2019, 02:46:51 PM
I occasionally get frustrated with comments in this forum but I'm frequently disappointed with comments from both liberals and conservatives elsewhere who don't seem to be able to see both sides of an issue and make logical arguments for why they believe what they do. So many comments (on facebook, twitter, tv, etc) are inflammatory and lack the logical arguments needed to change anyone's mind.

When beliefs are based on feelings (indoctrination, tribalism, family, friends, media, habit, religion, identity), they tend to be immune to facts, logic and argument.  (Galileo's heresy, flat earth, climate change denial, etc.) Having lived the first 20+ years of my life in a fundamentalist, Christian, conservative family, my beliefs and views changed gradually because of education and curious inquiry.  When I learned the truth, e.g., about our governments' actions in Latin America, or how the Bible was compiled, it caused me to question "everything" and fearlessly seek truth.  That is a path some are only willing to take so far, because it can shatter one's core beliefs or relationships.

The "liberal" and "conservative" labels are part of the problem.  They reinforce tribalism, rather than get to the truth.  Is it fiscally "conservative" to exacerbate our national debt by giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy?  Wrong question.  Is it wise?  Does it work best for society as a whole, including future generations? 

When your "tribe" does something, it not only defines your tribe, it compels you to defend it and reinforce your feelings about it Sometimes, it gets ridiculous.  The lengths that some good, well-meaning people go to defend Trump's actions is shocking.  When it becomes impossible, they sometimes get quiet or angry.  I can make compelling arguments in favor of separating children from their parents at the border, or eugenics, or genocide ... (see Deuteronomy). But if you ever find yourself making those kind of arguments, it is time to retrace your steps and find out how you lost your way on the path of human decency.

Why can't we all agree to get of gerrymandering?  Why can't we enact campaign finance reform that reduces political bribery/corruption?  These should be nonpartisan issues.  But many "conservative" and "liberal" politicians will do almost anything to protect their wealth/power, and voters are too easily duped into supporting their tribe and opposing the other tribe to hold their representatives accountable.


 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on February 26, 2019, 02:48:03 PM
I cannot think of a single action taken by Obama which was meant to be divisive. His entire schtick throughout his campaign and well into his term was that he was constantly calling for unity and working together.
Okay, here's a quick one.
Recess appointments (which were done knowing full well they would engender bitterness) (and did) (and were found unconstitutional in a few cases)
Did Obama do it? Yup. Did W? Yup did Clinton? Yup. It's been awhile (Reagan) since presidents had had the decency not to exercise that power.

For context...

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42329.html
Quote
President Obama made 32 recess appointments, all to full-time positions. During his presidency, President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions and 44 to part-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, 99 to full-time positions and 72 to part-time positions.
...
In each of the 32 instances in which President Obama made a recess appointment, the individual also was nominated to the position to which he or she was appointed. In all of these cases, a related nomination to the position preceded the recess appointment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/
Quote
By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

Reid’s point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers. Using these figures, blockages under Obama actually accounted for more than half of the total, not less then half. Either way, it's disproportionate by historical standards.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 26, 2019, 02:52:54 PM
Watchmaker asked "@ericrugiero, just a prompt for further discussion--how do you approach disagreement? Are you as kind, open-minded, fair, generous, and collaborative as you can be?"  I try to be, but of course we all fall short sometimes.  Most people that know me would say that I do tend to fit that description for the most part.

Great! In your original post, you said that too many people were just looking to bash on trump (paraphrasing). Mathlete made a interesting post about Obama's biggest lie, which, if you buy his argument, shows that there's a real difference in the behavior of the current and the last president. What do you think about Mathlete's point? Could it be that some rational people go after Trump  because he genuinely does more objectionable things then other presidents have?

And, if there is an asymmetry in the behavior of Obama and Trump, then wouldn't any neutral news source also, if they want to be accurate, reflect that asymmetry? Is it left leaning if NPR reports on all of Trumps lies (numerous) just as they did on Obama's lies (fewer)?

I do agree that Trump is more objectionable in his behavior and mannerisms than Obama.  Obama is very polished and does a very good job of looking and acting presidential.  Trump is controversial and seems to almost enjoy antagonizing opponents (and the media).  So, I can appreciate the argument that NPR might object to Trump's antics a little more and report on them accordingly. 

But, lets not carried away and say Obama didn't lie very much.   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.4c8d79086518 
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 02:53:41 PM
I'm perfectly okay discussing Obama's divisive rhetoric. He is not above criticism. But while we're discussing two or three select quotes from an 11 year stint as the most admired man in the country, we should also note that last week, not for the first time, Donald Trump called the press the enemy of the people.

Yesterday, he said that, "Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth." Which of course, stems from a bullshit interpretation of a Senate vote.

It's fine to acknowledge that two parties can be deficient by some metric. Just as long as we don't ignore the obvious reality that one side is orders of magnitude worse.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 26, 2019, 03:02:01 PM
I thought when someone said that Obama was being "divisive" I thought they meant racially divisive, not say appointing a judicial nominee during recess which the Republican party didn't like.

"You didn't build that" I have to think about that. Most of the successful people I know would agree with that statement. So if successful people agree with that statement, it doesn't seem that controversial. Not that these people are saying they didn't put a whole lot of hard work into getting where they are. But that they acknowledge that they wouldn't be where they are, without other factors, whether it was being born in the US, or being able to immigrate to the US. Being born white. Having family members loan them money, and even having particular individuals in their life who believed in them early on, etc. Simply being born in the US is such a huge advantage it would be silly not to acknowledge this. It doesn't take away from anyone's success to acknowledge this, and one would want to create an environment where more people can succeed, not less. For example it is really really hard to succeed in some countries due to the corruption of the government. The only people who "succeed" in those countries are people who are corrupt government officials, or the businesspeople working with the corrupt officials.   
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 26, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
I'm perfectly okay discussing Obama's divisive rhetoric. He is not above criticism. But while we're discussing two or three select quotes from an 11 year stint as the most admired man in the country, we should also note that last week, not for the first time, Donald Trump called the press the enemy of the people.

Yesterday, he said that, "Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth." Which of course, stems from a bullshit interpretation of a Senate vote.

It's fine to acknowledge that two parties can be deficient by some metric. Just as long as we don't ignore the obvious reality that one side is orders of magnitude worse.

What a surprise now Democrats are being called "baby killers".

In real news, with real human children, Trump made it a federal crime to cross the border. And enforced de facto, parents being separated from their children at the border. Parents are the primal, number one protectors of their children. Parents and children separated, children in a foreign country. And now, many of these children are unaccounted for (at least 1500). There are real concerns these children are ending up with human traffickers.   
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 26, 2019, 03:16:24 PM
I do agree that Trump is more objectionable in his behavior and mannerisms than Obama.  Obama is very polished and does a very good job of looking and acting presidential.  Trump is controversial and seems to almost enjoy antagonizing opponents (and the media).  So, I can appreciate the argument that NPR might object to Trump's antics a little more and report on them accordingly. 

But, lets not carried away and say Obama didn't lie very much.   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.4c8d79086518 
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds

Of course Obama lied. But he was held accountable. By voters. By Republicans. By the so-called liberal media. And I wrote a big long post a page ago about how he answered for one of his biggest false statements and took responsibility.

Trump lies much more, and takes responsibility for nothing. And he's not held responsible by his party (89% approval among Republicans).

I'm glad you referenced the Washington Post Fact Checker, because Trump just made a comment on the WaPo Fact Checker a week ago.

Quote
The Washington Post is a Fact Checker only for the Democrats. For the Republicans, and for your all time favorite President, it is a Fake Fact Checker!

He doesn't like the Washington Post, likely because they accurately report on the bad things he does. And conservatives follow suit. Per Pew Research, conservatives rated the Washington Post "more distrusted than trusted."

Personally, I consider The Post the paper of record and it's silly to think that there's enough bias there that they're simply making things up. But fine, whatever. Maybe Republicans think they're biased.

Where is the high quality, conservative leaning outlet that does original reporting and robust fact-checking then? There isn't one. That's why even conservatives cite Politifact and WaPo.

There aren't any high quality, conservative leaning outlets that do robust original reporting because by and large, conservatives do not values these things. This isn't just liberal rhetoric from me either. I have data.

In the same Pew Research survey, consistent conservatives were found to trust only seven outlets, and among them, only one subscription newspaper.  The other trusted outlets?

-Fox News
-Breitbart
-The Drudge Report
-Glenn Beck
-Sean Hannity
-Rush Limbaugh

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 26, 2019, 03:46:03 PM
I do agree that Trump is more objectionable in his behavior and mannerisms than Obama.  Obama is very polished and does a very good job of looking and acting presidential.  Trump is controversial and seems to almost enjoy antagonizing opponents (and the media).  So, I can appreciate the argument that NPR might object to Trump's antics a little more and report on them accordingly. 

But, lets not carried away and say Obama didn't lie very much.   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/?utm_term=.4c8d79086518 
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds

I agree that Obama also lied. It sounds like we both agree that he didn't lie nearly as much as Trump does. I'm less certain that we agree on this next point: Obama's lies were not as egregious as many of Trump's. I only have time right now for one example, but lets look at the the first one from the WaPo article:

“More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America”

Obama was wrong, by a factor of 2.5 times. But he was probably referring to this story which had recently been in the news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21001543/ns/us_news-life/t/more-blacks-latinos-jail-college-dorms/

In short, the report says that more black people live in prison cells than dorm rooms in the US. That is very different from what Obama said (critically it doesn't count college students who live off campus). But it's not qualitatively different from what he was trying to say and if he'd gotten his facts right, his point would still have been reasonable (that there are too many young black men in prison).

I'm not here to defend Obama. But the point I hope I'm making is that it is not bias to treat his lies and Trump's lies differently, since the nature and scope of their lies are different.



Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: robartsd on February 26, 2019, 03:57:51 PM
robartsd, I would LOVE ranked choice voting.

They did it in Maine for the 2018 election:

http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work (http://www.rcvmaine.com/how_does_ranked_choice_voting_work)

I hope to see more states adopt this soon.
I'd modify the process for eliminating candidates to reduce the number of rounds. In each round eliminate as many candidates as possible such that the remaining candidates combined have a majority of votes and each have more votes than any eliminated candidate.

I'd also allow ranking only a subset of candidates (optional preferential voting) - if they all get eliminated, your vote doesn't transfer to another candidate, but it still is counted as a vote for determining how many votes makes a majority. Due to these votes that do not go to any remaining candidate, it is possible that you'd come to a round where no candidate can be eliminated but no candidate has a majority. The candidates remaining in this round could then be subjected to a runoff where voters are required to rank all candidates (full preferential voting). I could see replacing primaries with an optional preferential voting round in which the candidates in the last round that has multiple candidates advance to the next round face off in a full preferential voting general election (even if the next round would have found a winner).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: JZinCO on February 26, 2019, 05:23:37 PM
He should have had the political foresight to see how that comment would play though.
....

But those comments play to academics and intellectuals. An aspiring president should choose his words more carefully.

---

Both of these examples are valid criticisms and examples of Obama being divisive. I agree. But with Obama, it is a matter of choosing his words more carefully. There is a good faith interpretation that you can make from what he says.

There is no good faith way to interpret Donald Trump spreading false propaganda about black crime. There's no good faith way to interpret him saying that an American judge can't be impartial because he's Mexican. There's no good faith way to interpret moving on women "like a bitch" and grabbing their pussies without permission.

Not even in the same stratosphere of divisiveness.
Agree, Obama's professorial rhetoric in general was not received well by many people. Noone wants to feel talked down or as if they were an idiot (in some circles this is called mansplaining).

To those who replied to my comments. I can't say you're wrong. Truly there is no epitome of a bad politician moreso than Trump. But you're in engaging in a tu quoque logical fallacy. It really doesn't matter whatsoever if Obama's divisiveness was well-intentioned or not built on falsehoods. It still rubs people the wrong way and still is not the way to make progress.

I truly just don't use situational ethics and I'm not a consequentialist. It's wrong or it's right. There are degrees of severity, sure. But I can't hold one political figure on a pedestal while I criticize another for the same actions. It doesn't matter if Obama lies less than Trump. They still did it and exercised the same lack of restraint.
I'm just saying, we should everyone accountable with every instance of bad behavior.

If you don't believe me, here is an example of why that matters:
- Obama expanded on the use of executive orders to sidestep barriers (as did his predecessors) or cover up scandals, creating precedents in the court system for a further expanded power of the presidency. Most of us sat by and were like 'Well, yeah we should let Obama disempower Congress.. after all they are holding him back'
- Do we not expect Trump to do the same? Why should we be outraged when we were part of creating that potential.
I say we hold politicians of all stripes accountable, NOT engage in a pissing contest of who does it worse (else we get back to the 'What about...?' loop of endless bickering).
The solution is that we as citizens need to be ever vigilant for abuses of power and dangerous or counterproductive speech, NOT let it slide or argue it away when our priorities are aligned. Because, we don't know when some jagoff (Trump) or even some smooth talking, progressive but REAL authoritarian will take the mantle.

/libertarian-esque rant
 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2019, 05:35:13 PM
Mansplaining is a man explaining something obvious to a woman who already knows it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: JZinCO on February 26, 2019, 06:37:28 PM
Mansplaining is a man explaining something obvious to a woman who already knows it.
Thanks for splaining ;)

Should I mansplain to you why the same professorial/ belittling tone that Obama would use is mansplaining?...
the dictionary definition of mansplaining is the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
Obama was frequently cited as speaking in a condescending or patronizing tone (source: google 'Obama patronizing', see media articles)
Hence Obama's style of rhetoric, in another context is the same style that is cited as mansplaining.

edit: Here is a classic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=102&v=caBzcSYLnEI I could easily see how someone in this woman's shoes being talked to in this way (notice her head nodding like 'yes, yes, okay just answer my question and stop telling me how it is') would call this mansplaining.
 Look I am an academic. I speak like this everyday; the reason I do it is because I am aware of the curse of knowledge. As a tactic to make sure I don't lose listeners, I have to assume the listeners aren't already up to speed. So it's no judgement, but I'm acknowledging that this style of rhetoric is indeed off putting.

open/shut, back to the Off-topic topic?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2019, 07:17:17 PM
Mansplaining is a man explaining something obvious to a woman who already knows it.
Thanks for splaining ;)

Should I mansplain to you why the same professorial/ belittling tone that Obama would use is mansplaining?...
the dictionary definition of mansplaining is the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
Obama was frequently cited as speaking in a condescending or patronizing tone (source: google 'Obama patronizing', see media articles)
Hence Obama's style of rhetoric, in another context is the same style that is cited as mansplaining.

edit: Here is a classic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=102&v=caBzcSYLnEI I could easily see how someone in this woman's shoes being talked to in this way (notice her head nodding like 'yes, yes, okay just answer my question and stop telling me how it is') would call this mansplaining.
 Look I am an academic. I speak like this everyday; the reason I do it is because I am aware of the curse of knowledge. As a tactic to make sure I don't lose listeners, I have to assume the listeners aren't already up to speed. So it's no judgement, but I'm acknowledging that this style of rhetoric is indeed off putting.

open/shut, back to the Off-topic topic?

Nope.

But nice try, guy.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 27, 2019, 06:09:59 AM
I thought when someone said that Obama was being "divisive" I thought they meant racially divisive, not say appointing a judicial nominee during recess which the Republican party didn't like.

They were. They moved the goalposts.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 27, 2019, 06:46:20 AM
What a surprise now Democrats are being called "baby killers".

In real news, with real human children, Trump made it a federal crime to cross the border. And enforced de facto, parents being separated from their children at the border. Parents are the primal, number one protectors of their children. Parents and children separated, children in a foreign country. And now, many of these children are unaccounted for (at least 1500). There are real concerns these children are ending up with human traffickers.   
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html

I've been staying away from the abortion topic because it's so controversial and unlikely for anyone to change their mind.  But, it is a good example of a very controversial topic where there is a logical argument on each side that ends up in very different place depending on your starting beliefs. 

Pro-Choice Perspective (you can correct me if I'm wrong).  Before birth, we are a fetus that isn't human, has no rights and does not need to be protected.  Because the fetus is in a woman's body, it will have a major impact on her life.  She should have the freedom to choose what to do with her life and her body.  It's not fair for others (especially men who are not impacted the same way) to tell her what she has to do with her body.  How is it consistent for pro-life people to not take major action on situations like the migrant children mentioned above?  They don't care about people or they would take action on that and many other situations. 

Pro-Life Perspective.  From conception we are a human being that should be protected.  There is a very real and significant impact on the life of the mother if she has to carry the baby to term which should not be minimized.  But, this impact pales in comparison to the taking of another human life.  We are not allowed to kill someone else because their life causes us inconvenience.  All human rights matter but we don't have any other situations like killing 700,000 babies/year in the US.  How is it consistent for the pro-choice people to point fingers over 1,500 children (not that they don't matter) and then support killing babies? Shouldn't we address the biggest problem?  Adoption is an option which does impact the mother's life significantly but ends up in a much better place for the baby.

To me, there is a logical argument for each side if you accept the starting point.  We just start in two very different places.  I can respect the argument and the people who believe it for the most part (I do have an issue with celebrating abortion).  I think if we understand the arguments and keep in mind that both sides mean well (for the most part) we can be much more civil in our disagreement. 

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 27, 2019, 06:54:27 AM
I'm just saying, we should everyone accountable with every instance of bad behavior.

I say we hold politicians of all stripes accountable,

The solution is that we as citizens need to be ever vigilant for abuses of power and dangerous or counterproductive speech,

Of course. 100%. No one could possibly disagree with these statements in a vacuum. But it's here where we get back to having to recognize objective realities. Liberal Democrats are held accountable. Because institutions that are commonly thought of as liberal (newspapers, fact-checkers, etc.) hold them accountable, and the democratic base has trust in these institutions.

Honesty and Accuracy

I've already made a big long post about how Obama was held accountable, and took responsibility for his false claim that people could keep their current plan under Obamacare, so I won't cover that again. Here's another example though:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a firebrand, so she tends to get fact-checked a lot for someone who is a freshman congresswoman in office for less than two months.

When she felt that the editorial process in Politifact and the Washington Post's Fact Checks were unfair, she made pointed criticisms, while accepting responsibilitty for being wrong or not as accurate/clear as she should be,

Quote
Facts are facts, America. We should care about getting things right. Yet standards of who gets fact-checked, how often + why are unclear. This is where false equivalency+bias creeps in, allowing climate deniers to be put on par w/scientists, for example. For example, it looks like @PolitiFact has fact-checked Sarah Huckabee Sanders and myself the *same* amount of times: 6.

She’s been serving for almost 2 years. I’ve served 4 days. Why is she fact-checked so little? Is she adhering to some standard we don’t know about?

This culminated in exchanges with The Post and Politifcat in which we all got to learn a bit more about the fact-checking process, Ocasio Cortez saying that her words aren't meant as an attack, but legimitage questions, and that she respect the importance of the job journalists and fact-checkers do.

But when these very same institutions Fact Check Donald Trump, he simply dismisses them as straight up fake. He did it last week:

Quote
The Washington Post is a Fact Checker only for the Democrats. For the Republicans, and for your all time favorite President, it is a Fake Fact Checker!

And his base agrees with him. They don't call him out on this bullshit. Per Pew Research, they also agree that The Washington Post is not trustworthy. Even OP, who seems like a really nice guy, refers to this practice of the media checking the president as:

our media as a whole and many other people are so caught up in trashing Donald Trump and anyone they disagree with that we can't have a reasonable and open discussion

Racism

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) admitted to wearing blackface at a party in the 1980s. I don't think this makes him a horrible person or anything, but it creates enough doubt over whether he can govern equally for all races, that I think it's a legitimate topic of discussion. The Democratic Governor's Associate has called for him to resign. It's ultimately on Northam for whether or not he actually steps down. I suspect he won't, but the pressure is there. He has less political leeway now.

Donald Trump spread false and dangerous rhetoric about black people. He "both-sides" Charlottesville, drawing false equivalence between counter protesters and murderous Neo-Confederates and Nazis. Republican congressman Steven King is a white nationalist. These guys face comparatively little pressure because their base could not give a shit.

Sexual Misconduct

A story came out about Senator Al Franken unwantedly kissing Leanne Tweeden. A juvenile photo he took of her while she was sleeping lent a lot of credibility that this behavior was in his character. He faced pressure from fellow Democrats and resigned.

The same month that he resigned, Republican stood by Roy Moore as extremely credible accusations of pedophila surfaced.

Donald Trump:

Quote
We don't need a liberal person in [the Senate], a Democrat, Jones

Sarah Sanders:

Quote
The president wants people in the House and Senate who support his agenda.

Kellyanne Conway:

Quote
I'm telling you we want the votes in the Senate to get this tax bill through.

And in the end, Moore got over 600K votes from the Republican base. Thank god it wasn't enough, but only barely.

---

I am on board with holding everyone accountable. I think I do a fair job of it personally, and I support institutions like The Times, The Post, Politifact, etc. that hold everyone accountable.

Right now, I'm holding conservative Americans accountable, because I think they're asleep at the accountability wheel.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2019, 07:06:30 AM
What a surprise now Democrats are being called "baby killers".

In real news, with real human children, Trump made it a federal crime to cross the border. And enforced de facto, parents being separated from their children at the border. Parents are the primal, number one protectors of their children. Parents and children separated, children in a foreign country. And now, many of these children are unaccounted for (at least 1500). There are real concerns these children are ending up with human traffickers.   
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html

I've been staying away from the abortion topic because it's so controversial and unlikely for anyone to change their mind.  But, it is a good example of a very controversial topic where there is a logical argument on each side that ends up in very different place depending on your starting beliefs. 

Pro-Choice Perspective (you can correct me if I'm wrong).  Before birth, we are a fetus that isn't human, has no rights and does not need to be protected.  Because the fetus is in a woman's body, it will have a major impact on her life.  She should have the freedom to choose what to do with her life and her body.  It's not fair for others (especially men who are not impacted the same way) to tell her what she has to do with her body.  How is it consistent for pro-life people to not take major action on situations like the migrant children mentioned above?  They don't care about people or they would take action on that and many other situations. 

Pro-Life Perspective.  From conception we are a human being that should be protected.  There is a very real and significant impact on the life of the mother if she has to carry the baby to term which should not be minimized.  But, this impact pales in comparison to the taking of another human life.  We are not allowed to kill someone else because their life causes us inconvenience.  All human rights matter but we don't have any other situations like killing 700,000 babies/year in the US.  How is it consistent for the pro-choice people to point fingers over 1,500 children (not that they don't matter) and then support killing babies? Shouldn't we address the biggest problem?  Adoption is an option which does impact the mother's life significantly but ends up in a much better place for the baby.

To me, there is a logical argument for each side if you accept the starting point.  We just start in two very different places.  I can respect the argument and the people who believe it for the most part (I do have an issue with celebrating abortion).  I think if we understand the arguments and keep in mind that both sides mean well (for the most part) we can be much more civil in our disagreement.

I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 27, 2019, 07:08:32 AM
The basis of the pro life movement that humans are humans at conception (corrected) i.e. they have a "spirit", is based on religious scripture. While it is a compelling argument for those who are of those religious sects, it is NOT a logical argument. It is also a relatively recent interpretation of scripture, based on a pope (not part of original scripture).
We are a country where for our government we have separation of church and state. We are free to follow our faiths, so for example if your religion prohibits abortion, you are free NOT to get an abortion. We also have freedom FROM religion. That means that you cannot prohibit someone else from having an abortion, simply because your religion prohibits it. It is a religious prohibition, not a scientific, moral or legal one.

Scientifically speaking, I would say that pro choice people would say that an fertilized zygote and embryo is a "potential person". They are not yet a person, but have the potential to become a human. There is no guarantee that fertilized egg will develop into a human. In fact if you factor in fertilized eggs, over 70% miscarry before becoming a "human". In contrast, a born human, does not spontaneously abort or cease to exist. A born human also does not depend on another person's life in such an intimate matter, to exist.

During the early parts of pregnancy, unless you were a doctor/involved in her care, you would not even know she was pregnant. That person's status is a personal medical one, between that woman and her doctor.
It is an issue of privacy.

Legally speaking, we have the concept of bodily autonomy. It is the reason that for example, a person cannot be forced to say give a kidney to another person even if they can get by perfectly fine with only one kidney, and donating that kidney would save that other person's life.  A police officer does not even have the right to order person's blood to be drawn, without their legal consent. Consider that with the highly invasive concept of forcing someone to bear a child they do not want.
Legally speaking a unborn baby does not have the same rights as a born human. There are a few exceptions to this, especially when getting to a point where the unborn human could exist independently of the mother, but in generally legally speaking a fetus is not considered to be human or have the same rights as a human.   
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: skp on February 27, 2019, 07:48:08 AM
I am actually pro-choice, but I do understand the view points of both sides.  This is such a contentious issue.  Don't you think the New York legislatures act of "celebrating" instead of just doing what they think is right and quietly walking away could be viewed as an act of divisiveness.

Also, I know this isn't going to make sense.  I did not vote for Trump,  I am not for the wall, I think that declaring an emergency and building it anyway is an abuse of power, but unlogically I was a little glad Trump did it anyway.  a) there is no way it's going to stand up in the courts.  b) I saw Nancy Pelosi as gloating over the victory.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Gondolin on February 27, 2019, 07:57:12 AM
Quote
To those who replied to my comments. I can't say you're wrong. Truly there is no epitome of a bad politician moreso than Trump.
....
I say we hold politicians of all stripes accountable, NOT engage in a pissing contest of who does it worse (else we get back to the 'What about...?' loop of endless bickering).
The solution is that we as citizens need to be ever vigilant for abuses of power and dangerous or counterproductive speech, NOT let it slide or argue it away when our priorities are aligned. Because, we don't know when some jagoff (Trump) or even some smooth talking, progressive but REAL authoritarian will take the mantle.

See, you wanted this to come across as a series rational, patriotic, even-handed, non-partisan arguments that logically leds to a simple conclusion sane person would agree with.

What it actually looks like is run-of-the-mill centrist cowardice coupled the elitist "above it all" attitude of a Gary Johnson voter. Trump's actively burning down the house but Obama lit a match once so it must be ok. You're the real patriot, ready to jump into the fray when a "real" authoritarian threat arises but till then no need to dirty your hands.

Of course, I doubt you meant to make such divisive comments but, as I believe you said upthread, the perception of the audience is the driving reality.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 27, 2019, 08:22:51 AM
Abortion is a great example of a topic where I think there can be reasonable disagreement. Picking where human life begins is going to be completely arbitrary. I think it's a bad idea for liberals to die on this hill. If conservatives think a fetus is a human being, then it rationalizes a hell of a lot of the things they do, and the rhetoric they use on the issue. I think that's fair to some extent.

I agree with legalized abortions for a number of reasons.

1.) It's a woman's body and I don't think the state can compel her to use it to keep a fetus/person alive.

2.) Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will instead, keep access to safe abortions as a privilege for the rich, and restrict the poor to no access, or dangerous access. This widens the achievement and opportunity gap between the rich and poor.

A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2019, 08:42:35 AM
A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

Agreed.

But another way to reduce abortions would be to provide support for people to raise children so that the task becomes less impossible/daunting.  Things like extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded food programs, enrichment programs would all help do this.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2019, 08:49:57 AM
A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

Agreed.

But another way to reduce abortions would be to provide support for people to raise children so that the task becomes less impossible/daunting.  Things like extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded food programs, enrichment programs would all help do this.

This.

And if I saw conservatives devote even a tiny fraction of their efforts towards these things -- working to elect lawmakers who supported them, for example -- instead of all of their time and attention toward removing a woman's right to bodily autonomy, I might feel a lot less cynicism toward the whole "pro-life" movement.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 27, 2019, 08:59:29 AM
Abortion is a great example of a topic where I think there can be reasonable disagreement. Picking where human life begins is going to be completely arbitrary. I think it's a bad idea for liberals to die on this hill. If conservatives think a fetus is a human being, then it rationalizes a hell of a lot of the things they do, and the rhetoric they use on the issue. I think that's fair to some extent.

I agree with legalized abortions for a number of reasons.

1.) It's a woman's body and I don't think the state can compel her to use it to keep a fetus/person alive.

2.) Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will instead, keep access to safe abortions as a privilege for the rich, and restrict the poor to no access, or dangerous access. This widens the achievement and opportunity gap between the rich and poor.

A common goal can and should be reducing abortions to zero. I think you get there with quality (e.g. no abstinence only) sex education for all, and easy access to free contraceptives for all.

I don't know if there is a way to reduce abortions to zero because even the pill has a non-zero contraceptive rate. Condoms break. But there are methods that have shown to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions, but pro-lifers do NOT promote these methods. Programs like sex education and access to contraceptives not only are not encouraged, but often actively blocked, which we have seen in states that say do not have good sex education, the abortion rate rises. What is going on here? It's not just about "every life is sacred". It's the view that pre-marital sex is prohibited, a sin, and if a female -for whatever reason-including rape or child molestation, does get pregnant, she needs to bear the cost of that "sin" by carrying that child. It's about controlling women and their bodies. It's not about the sinfulness of the men, because men's role in the conception, even in case of child molestation or rape, are not part of the conversation. Nor what happens to the child after it is born. So, it's really not about the sacredness of "life" even though it is framed that way, unless you feel the life of the female or the life of the child post-birth is somehow irrelevant, just those unborn souls.     
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on February 27, 2019, 09:09:10 AM
I am on board with holding everyone accountable. I think I do a fair job of it personally, and I support institutions like The Times, The Post, Politifact, etc. that hold everyone accountable.

Right now, I'm holding conservative Americans accountable, because I think they're asleep at the accountability wheel.

+1.

And btw, it's not a responsiblity that I enjoy having.  So as soon as they're ready to take it back, I'll be glad to be rid of it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 27, 2019, 11:10:10 AM
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2019, 11:31:06 AM
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on February 27, 2019, 11:45:28 AM
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Do they choose to elect people to represent them that would also be "in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved?"  If not, why should I believe their words over their actions?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 27, 2019, 11:56:16 AM
Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 27, 2019, 12:02:16 PM
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

GuitarStv - I'm pro-choice and I agree with you (I think this point is fairly non-contentious) that in the US there is some correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. But I 'm not sure that I believe the language you first used is true for any significant portion of the population ("the life of the child [is] punishment for sin"). And I think we're all better served letting others explain their motivations rather than making that assertion. I think you can construct rational, consistent positions that are pro-life and anti-welfare.

For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.


Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 27, 2019, 12:09:11 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 27, 2019, 12:18:08 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on February 27, 2019, 12:36:38 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 27, 2019, 12:37:30 PM
Well, the Conservatives have Andrew Scheer now that they ditched Stephen Harper, and the Liberals have Justin Trudeau.  And of course the NDP (who didn't make the title) have Jagmeet Singh, who just won his by-election.  The Liberals have the advantage of sitting in the middle between a very conservative Conservative party, and a socialist NDP Party.

As you can see I haven't read the comments yet - have you been happy about the slashes Harper made to Federal budgets?  Do you like the tax reforms that give more money to parents of young children?  Do you like what Trudeau has done since taking office?  Or do you think his handling of the Chinese executive extradition was bungled?

Or maybe the title was about Ontario politics?  We also have a Conservative party, presently in power with the brother of the notorious late mayor of Toronto as leader (Doug instead of Rob Ford), a Liberal party that lost the last election, and an NDP party.

Of course if the OP had said liberal and conservative, instead of Liberal and Conservative (i.e. official party names), s/he could have been referring to any country.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on February 27, 2019, 12:39:44 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2019, 12:50:43 PM
I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.

I've been around pro-life people my whole life and have NEVER heard anything approaching that argument or attitude.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've never heard it and I do not believe it's widespread.  The pro-lifer's I have experience with would be in favor of helping the Mother, Child, Father and anyone else involved.

Often it's not explicitly stated, but can be inferred by actions.  Do the pro-lifers that you hang around all support extended maternity leave, subsidized child care, expanded government food programs, and enrichment programs . . . or do they fight tooth and nail against them?

GuitarStv - I'm pro-choice and I agree with you (I think this point is fairly non-contentious) that in the US there is some correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. But I 'm not sure that I believe the language you first used is true for any significant portion of the population ("the life of the child [is] punishment for sin"). And I think we're all better served letting others explain their motivations rather than making that assertion. I think you can construct rational, consistent positions that are pro-life and anti-welfare.

For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.

That's not logically consistent though.

If life is meant to be competitive, then the mother has every right to compete against her unborn child.  My suggestion that support for programs to make raising children more attractive was made because I accept that life is competitive.

If you don't want to help life after it's born, that's fine.  But it makes the same life less competitive immediately after conception.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on February 27, 2019, 01:09:41 PM
Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

Welfare removes some of the disincentives to not have babies. I'm pretty sure this is self-evident.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. I know of one family in particular that have had near double-digit children that would have literally been half-starving without welfare (they literally speak fondly of "the government cheese"). Almost all of these kids grew up to be very successful.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: PoutineLover on February 27, 2019, 01:27:05 PM
Latest news is that Trump's administration has cancelled title x funding to women's health clinics that provide abortion services or referrals. At the same time, they're putting in a gag order so that clinics can't tell their patients about all their medical options, including abortion, and clinics that lie to their patients can be funded.
This is not about pro-life, this about misogyny and control of women's bodies by the religious right. This will prevent women from accessing health care, close some of the only clinics that provide reproductive care for women, especially poor women, and lead to poorer health outcomes, which are already embarrassingly bad for a wealthy country.
Nobody who is truly pro-life should support this dehumanization of women. It's an assault on human rights and serves no valid purpose. Until conservatives stop doing shit like that, I could never support them, date them or honestly be friends with them. I respect myself too much. If that's divisive, too bad.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sugaree on February 27, 2019, 01:32:56 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

I'll freely admit that I fall more into the second category here.  But I feel like the TANF system is set up to fail.  The biggest issue I see is that there are hard cutoffs instead of a gradual tapering of benefits.  There comes a point where you make "too much" money working to continue benefits, but aren't making enough to actually live on. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 27, 2019, 01:48:24 PM
I know what pro-lifers said. I have actually spoken to quite a number of them over the years. Some do seem to care, others have told me I am going to hell for using contraception. But overall I am judging them by their actions, not their words.

Despite their statements and what they say are their motivations, their actions and their votes indicate they do not care about the health and welfare of women and babies in general, because of their huge activism to remove government funding from planned parenthood (None of which goes to abortions), or in some cases try to close them down. Sometimes politically, sometimes by intimidation. A huge number of women (in particular lower income women) get their reproductive health care from PP! If you don't get good early reproductive care, your likelihood of having healthy pregnancies and healthy births goes down.
In my case in my early 20's I went to PP in order to get on contraception. They don't just hand it out, they give you reproductive care. In my case they discovered precancerous cells in the pap smear they did, and treated it. So not only did I NOT die of potentially undiagnosed cancer (hey, I'm a life too! Do I count?), later on in life when I was ready and prepared to have kids I was able to successfully bear two healthy children. Do you think if politically or by intimidation pro lifers closed down all PP clinics, would then be saving "lives"? I argue not. Instead these women would then pursue more dangerous, and sometimes more late term abortions, which not only terminates the pregnancy but risks the health and life of the mother as well. If pro-lifers shrug their shoulders and say they are fine with that kind of thing happening, well that's all I can say about the subject.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on February 27, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

Welfare removes some of the disincentives to not have babies. I'm pretty sure this is self-evident.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. I know of one family in particular that have had near double-digit children that would have literally been half-starving without welfare (they literally speak fondly of "the government cheese"). Almost all of these kids grew up to be very successful.

Well, that's not really what was said.  But if that is what was being referenced, instead of any positive incentive to have more children created by the welfare programs, then it kind of sounds like GuitarStv was right doesn't it?

I think it's very important to point out that a great many "pro-life" people appear to view the life of a child as punishment for sin (the sin of copulation).  The life of the child is important only as long as it's in the mother.  Once born, the mother and child can fend for themselves.  Helping the family at this point makes the punishment for the mother less harsh, and therefore is discouraged.  By this point of view it's better for a child to live in poverty, food insecurity, with parents (or a parent) who didn't want the child, and with little to no real hope or chance of a successful career than that an abortion take place.  Not because that's a better outcome for anyone, but because it punishes sin.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on February 27, 2019, 02:25:52 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

I'll freely admit that I fall more into the second category here.  But I feel like the TANF system is set up to fail.  The biggest issue I see is that there are hard cutoffs instead of a gradual tapering of benefits.  There comes a point where you make "too much" money working to continue benefits, but aren't making enough to actually live on.

This is a good point about the problems with welfare.  I'm not opposed to welfare, I just think we should set it up so that we are helping the ones who need it without creating dependency.  The whole thing should be set up to help people get their feet back under them.  If we penalize the ones who go back to work, that keeps them from working. There are lots of healthy people who use welfare as a way of life with no plans to do anything different.  The system shouldn't be eliminated, just improved. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2019, 02:32:33 PM

They would be in favor of a program to help to get people on their feet and give them the opportunity to be successful (this would probably include extended maternity leave, I'm not sure about the others).  They would probably not be in favor of an extended welfare program that encourages women to have more babies so they can get more benefits (most of which aren't spent on the kids).  Many of these same people do volunteer their own time and money at places to help young pregnant women through a difficult time.

I have no hard data on this, but I don't think this is what incentives people to have children or not.

Rearing an additional marginal child is a huge undertaking, and I have to think anyone sophisticated enough to do the analysis of how much more welfare they'll get realizes that the emotional/financial/physical burden of raising another child outweighs whatever additional benefit there is.

People have children before they're emotionally and financially ready because sex feels good.

For most people, I think you are correct.  But, some people on welfare do think this way.  I live in a relatively poor area of the Midwest where multi-generational welfare is a problem.  These kids are raised with very little food, guidance, love, or incentive to learn.  They end up just like their parents because it's all they know.  My church is reaching out to these families and trying to help them with some limited success.

That's not a bad summary of the difference in views on welfare between conservatives and liberals.

We shouldn't give people help who need it, because someone might get help who doesn't deserve it.
vs.
We should give people help who need it, even though someone who doesn't deserve it will get it, too.

I'll freely admit that I fall more into the second category here.  But I feel like the TANF system is set up to fail.  The biggest issue I see is that there are hard cutoffs instead of a gradual tapering of benefits.  There comes a point where you make "too much" money working to continue benefits, but aren't making enough to actually live on.

This is a good point about the problems with welfare.  I'm not opposed to welfare, I just think we should set it up so that we are helping the ones who need it without creating dependency.  The whole thing should be set up to help people get their feet back under them.  If we penalize the ones who go back to work, that keeps them from working. There are lots of healthy people who use welfare as a way of life with no plans to do anything different.  The system shouldn't be eliminated, just improved.

I would guess you would find many people on the left side of the spectrum who agree with this. I certainly do.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 02:42:55 PM
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

Then there are people who rant and rave about how disadvantaged they and others are despite living in extreme wealth and being provided with so many opportunities within their life. We all have to comply with these people's viewpoints and if you don't you will be abused at the very least. I liken these people to Pol Pot who wanted to re-create society into his version of a better one. I think that these are the people that the OP classifies as liberals.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 27, 2019, 02:47:06 PM
Which welfare programs do you think are encouraging women to have more babies currently?

Welfare removes some of the disincentives to not have babies. I'm pretty sure this is self-evident.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, just a fact. I know of one family in particular that have had near double-digit children that would have literally been half-starving without welfare (they literally speak fondly of "the government cheese"). Almost all of these kids grew up to be very successful.

Government cheese was actually supposed to have been very good. It was just surplus cheese produced because the government was over subsidizing dairy. They gave it away as a welfare receipt instead of selling it on the market because doing so would have cratered the cheese market. Really interesting story.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/31/643486297/episode-862-big-government-cheese (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/31/643486297/episode-862-big-government-cheese)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2019, 02:51:17 PM
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

It’s impossible not to just laugh.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on February 27, 2019, 02:57:38 PM
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

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

What fact did you get shouted down for? Was it for agreeing with the Peterson comment? That sounds like an opinion to me.

But if that's what caused you to get shouted down, it wouldn't surprise me. Jordan Peterson is extremely skilled at saying shitty things without saying them. It's a little bit of a gas-lighting. Because he's so good at this, he excels at drawing liberals off sides.

That sounds like what may have happened to you. Some liberals shouted you down because they know what Peterson is really on about, but they find it difficult to verbalize it because he's so slippery. That doesn't mean they were right to shout you down, because they weren't. But I do sympathize.

It takes a very well-practiced person to effectively litigate against Peterson rhetoric.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on February 27, 2019, 03:04:26 PM
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

It’s impossible not to just laugh.

It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 27, 2019, 03:21:16 PM
For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.

That's not logically consistent though.

If life is meant to be competitive, then the mother has every right to compete against her unborn child.  My suggestion that support for programs to make raising children more attractive was made because I accept that life is competitive.

I'm truly not seeing an inconsistency there. Believing that life should be a survival-of-the-fittest competition, and believing that the competition shouldn't start until birth would both be moral positions. They are opinions about how we should structure society. Again, this is not my position on the subject at all. (I'm firmly on the pro-choice side, but in an odd way not relevant to this conversation).

I'm sure we could come to an understanding with some further discussion (I've read enough of your posts to value what you write), but I think I'm getting sidetracked from the point I'm trying to make, which is more general than abortion.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

I'm not suggesting an obligation to go this route-- I don't expect women walking into PP to befriend the protesters--but if you have the capacity I think this is a better way of effecting change. 

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 03:43:11 PM
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

It’s impossible not to just laugh.

I don't agree with the acknowledgement comment. It's interesting that you use that word.

That isn't the issue though. It's the idea that the world has to be re-made based on that in my opinion abhorrent idea.

If you stated that you believed in the patriarchy but things are changing so rapidly in the western world that women now have so many opportunities to succeed and they are going out there and doing it the Pol Pot comment would be out of line. The Pol Pot comment is extreme but it's a good line isn't it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2019, 03:48:52 PM
I'm definitely a liberal. I believe in equal opportunities and I believe in letting people make their own decisions on how they live their lives. I've always voted for the party on the left side of politics. I don't support going to war or any sort of racism at all. I'm married to an Asian woman and I have 3 half Asian kids. I think basically all drugs should be legalised. I don't support Trump and think he should be voted out.

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO @ Pol Pot.

You just kneecapped your own self, Steveo. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you compare people who acknowledge our social structure was formed around white males having most of the power, to a dictator who murdered three million people?

It’s impossible not to just laugh.

I don't agree with the acknowledgement comment. It's interesting that you use that word.

That isn't the issue though. It's the idea that the world has to be re-made based on that in my opinion abhorrent idea.

If you stated that you believed in the patriarchy but things are changing so rapidly in the western world that women now have so many opportunities to succeed and they are going out there and doing it the Pol Pot comment would be out of line. The Pol Pot comment is extreme but it's a good line isn't it.

It’s a line that makes you look silly because it’s not extreme, it’s ridiculous. So no, it’s not particularly effective. It makes a reader go from trying to consider the validity of your point, to laughing at you and concluding that you’re spouting nonsense. That wasn’t your intention, right?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 03:53:08 PM
It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

It's probably better to respond to what I stated rather than a spiel that you are trying to get out. Listen to how funny your comments are:-

1. "extreme fragility of the male ego". This is gold. I am laughing my head off on this one. Yep those dastardly men and the fragile egos.
2. "It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot." -- I just responded to this same comment. I definitely wasn't stating anything like the way you took it. That is probably both our faults. People will believe that they have some special theory on the social structure. You say acknowledge which is again a funny comment about an opinion and belief. The problem is when you try and change the system and how you try and change it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 03:55:11 PM
It’s a line that makes you look silly because it’s not extreme, it’s ridiculous. So no, it’s not particularly effective. It makes a reader go from trying to consider the validity of your point, to laughing at you and concluding that you’re spouting nonsense. That wasn’t your intention, right?

No it wasn't and I wish I hadn't posted that now. It's such a trivial comment in my overall post but clearly it was a bad miscommunication. I did state a lot of other stuff apart from that comment and I think those comments are a lot more relevant to the discussion than that one point.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 04:05:01 PM
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on February 27, 2019, 04:50:17 PM
It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

It's probably better to respond to what I stated rather than a spiel that you are trying to get out. Listen to how funny your comments are:-

1. "extreme fragility of the male ego". This is gold. I am laughing my head off on this one. Yep those dastardly men and the fragile egos.
2. "It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot." -- I just responded to this same comment. I definitely wasn't stating anything like the way you took it. That is probably a both our faults. People will believe that they have some special theory on the social structure. You say acknowledge which is again a funny comment about an opinion and belief. The problem is when you try and change the system and how you try and change it.

What I wrote came off more dismissive than intended. I am a man, and I was firmly including myself in that fragile male ego group. We are probably on the same side of almost all social issues, but I am 100% sure that I have done or said something racist before, and 100% sure that I have said or done something sexist before. It stings to be accused of that, regardless of if it is justified or not. It is only natural to carry around that hurt for a few threads as you get over it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 04:59:27 PM
It's a good example of the extreme fragility of the male ego, whether liberal or conservative. It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot. It's the people who called Steveo's views sexist or misogynist (rightly or wrongly), or criticized him for thinking Jordan Peterson had anything useful or interesting to say (definitely rightly) that are like Pol Pot.

It's probably better to respond to what I stated rather than a spiel that you are trying to get out. Listen to how funny your comments are:-

1. "extreme fragility of the male ego". This is gold. I am laughing my head off on this one. Yep those dastardly men and the fragile egos.
2. "It isn't people who acknowledge the social structure that are like Pol Pot." -- I just responded to this same comment. I definitely wasn't stating anything like the way you took it. That is probably a both our faults. People will believe that they have some special theory on the social structure. You say acknowledge which is again a funny comment about an opinion and belief. The problem is when you try and change the system and how you try and change it.

What I wrote came off more dismissive than intended. I am a man, and I was firmly including myself in that fragile male ego group. We are probably on the same side of almost all social issues, but I am 100% sure that I have done or said something racist before, and 100% sure that I have said or done something sexist before. It stings to be accused of that, regardless of if it is justified or not. It is only natural to carry around that hurt for a few threads as you get over it.

Honestly I don't view this stuff as men vs women now because there are so many women that don't have these extreme leftist viewpoints. There are also men who have these extreme leftist viewpoints.

I don't get the comments about at one point in your life doing something wrong. Sure but who hasn't ? I'm definitely not offended by anything stated towards me on this forum. I'm not racist or sexist at all and if I am called that I just laugh because it's hilarious.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on February 27, 2019, 06:11:41 PM
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Laserjet3051 on February 27, 2019, 06:21:36 PM
First of all, this post is not intended to start a fight.  There have been several threads that have made me want to respond with my views (but I have refrained so that the thread wasn't sidetracked.)  Please read this and understand that I'm wanting open and honest communication without fighting or being nasty to each other. 

In reading most of the threads around here, it seems like most of the members lean to the left both politically and socially.  I tend to be more on the conservative end of the spectrum.  Comments are made with assumptions about conservatives that make me defensive whether I should be or not.  For example, in a recent thread there was a reference to someone who watched fox news and that it was not surprising that this viewer made racist comments.  Admittedly, there are conservatives who are racists but there are also liberals who are racists.  It seems like racism has become a default accusation if you disagree with someone.  (for example, if you don't like ILLEGAL immigration, you must be racist)  In my experience, most conservatives are not opposed to immigration, they just want it done legally by people who are going to follow our laws.  Breaking into the country illegally isn't a good start to following the laws of our country.  I'm not a Trump fan or a big proponent of building a wall.  But, I do agree we have a big issue with border security which needs to be solved.  That has nothing to do with the race of the people coming through our Southern border.  It has everything to do with them following our laws and being productive citizens (as well as restricting illegal drugs, human trafficking, etc).  Why can't we have productive discussions about this without assuming the worst of others?

Regarding fox news, there are not a lot of good options for a conservative to get news from a TV show.  I guess my issue with the comment implying racism (and others supporting it) is that an assumption is being made about conservatives that is not true of the majority of them.  You can watch a tv station or show without agreeing with everything on it.  Also, some things that are labeled "racist" are just things that people disagree with and not real racism.  Our society (both conservative and liberal) tends to assume the worst of people who don't agree with them.  In my experience, most people are liberal or conservative because that's what they legitimately think will be best for people as a whole.  I'd like us as a country to reach the place where we can openly discuss the merits of different beliefs and whether they make sense.  Right now, our media as a whole and many other people are so caught up in trashing Donald Trump and anyone they disagree with that we can't have a reasonable and open discussion without getting mad and defensive.  We should be able to look for the best in people without being so easily offended. 

My concern right now is that we are going the wrong way with racism.  Obama was our first black president which is great (I disagree with many of his policies but I'm glad we had a black president).  But, he didn't do much of anything to reduce racism and help us be all one people (if anything, he was divisive).  That was a big wasted opportunity, he could have made a big difference in bringing us all together.  Now, we have Trump who spends much of his time fighting with the media and making controversial statements/tweets.  The mainstream media is so upset with him they aren't helping matters (or being objective for the most part).  We have made so much progress as a country that I hate to see us go backwards. 

I'll end my rant here because it's long enough.  For the most part, this community is open minded and accepting.  I occasionally get frustrated with comments in this forum but I'm frequently disappointed with comments from both liberals and conservatives elsewhere who don't seem to be able to see both sides of an issue and make logical arguments for why they believe what they do. So many comments (on facebook, twitter, tv, etc) are inflammatory and lack the logical arguments needed to change anyone's mind.

ericrugiero, it DOESNT have to be this way. Beneath the vicious malintent of those who seek to fan the flames of disagreement in this nation, lies fundamental differences in philospohy and morality. That will NEVER change. But what CAN change is that we, as people become tolerant and respectful of those that have different moral and philosophical convictions. I may despise the values many of my leftist family and friends have, but I am respectful and tolerant of them. I do not despise them as people. I'm atheist and disagree with much of the central tenets of Christianity. Yet I respect these people and tolerate their belief system. We (my social circle) all seem to get along pretty well, that is, except for the rabblerousers that are intolerant and disrespectful. You know who you are.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on February 27, 2019, 06:23:33 PM
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2019, 07:05:15 PM
For instance, if you believe the following three things: 
-Life is meant to be competitive.
-Every life deserves a chance to compete.
-Beyond that chance, it's up to them and anyone that wants to help them.

...it would make sense for you to be pro-life but anti-welfare. And we don't even have to bring religion into the equation.

Abortion is one of those tricky issues, I think, because there isn't a clear, verifiable truth (i.e life begins at conception / life begins at birth). Both of those positions are wrong, but "life" is a complex enough phenomenon that there isn't a single correct answer.

That's not logically consistent though.

If life is meant to be competitive, then the mother has every right to compete against her unborn child.  My suggestion that support for programs to make raising children more attractive was made because I accept that life is competitive.

I'm truly not seeing an inconsistency there. Believing that life should be a survival-of-the-fittest competition, and believing that the competition shouldn't start until birth would both be moral positions. They are opinions about how we should structure society. Again, this is not my position on the subject at all. (I'm firmly on the pro-choice side, but in an odd way not relevant to this conversation).

I'm sure we could come to an understanding with some further discussion (I've read enough of your posts to value what you write), but I think I'm getting sidetracked from the point I'm trying to make, which is more general than abortion.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

I'm not suggesting an obligation to go this route-- I don't expect women walking into PP to befriend the protesters--but if you have the capacity I think this is a better way of effecting change.

Here's why it's logically inconsistent.

As mentioned, if we believe in competition then the mom should be allowed to abort.  The result of competition is sometimes someone loses (in this case the child).  But this is unacceptable.  So, the competition has to start at birth.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Why does the competition have to start at birth?  Because otherwise it's unfair obviously!  The mom has too many advantages over the child if she wants to terminate.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Unfairness being a problem.  But why does the concern about unfairness end the second the baby pops out of the vagina?  It's totally unfair for some kids to be born to loving stable families who wanted them, and other kids to families that didn't want them and cannot provide them even food security.

That's very inconsistent.  Either we should care about competition, we should care about fairness, or we should care about competition and fairness.  You can't just pick one or the other depending on whether or not it lets you prevent someone from choosing to have an abortion.  That's altering the rules of the game to fit the outcome you want.

You want to structure society based upon valid and differing viewpoints, fine.  Sounds great.  But there need to be competing viewpoints that are logically consistent.  At the moment this argument for "pro-life" just sounds like post-rationalization after someone has already made a (religious based?) decision.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 07:16:16 PM
I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

You are part of the evil patriarchy. I mean when you come at people like that it's going to be difficult. I think people are reacting to this. We aren't evil. We aren't bad. We don't believe that men are putting women down. We ain't buying what you are selling because it's too extreme.

As I stated earlier I'm a liberal and I'm an atheist. My wife attends church weekly. We should get to choose our religious beliefs or non-beliefs.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on February 27, 2019, 08:15:51 PM
Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them ...

No we aren't.  And we don't believe that.

Can you find me an example of someone who does?  That's a fringe communist belief held by approximately 5 people in a college somewhere.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on February 27, 2019, 08:20:47 PM
Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

You're being too vague.  How are the people on the left putting you off side?
Is it our desire to provide everyone with better, universal health care, cheaper than you're getting it right now?
Is it because we're calling out people when they're contributing to racism and many people were happier pretending racism wasn't a problem?
Is #metoo going "too far"?

What, precisely, is the left doing that is so very off-putting?

I spent eight years listening to right wingers complain about how off-putting and divisive Obama was.  How he was "Taking away our rights".  And then you ask them to name the rights he'd taken away, and they couldn't.  And to name the divisive behaviour he engaged in, and they couldn't.

So, I'll ask you, in all honesty, what is the left doing to you these days that is hurting so bad and making you suddenly switch sides?

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 27, 2019, 09:40:12 PM
Here's why it's logically inconsistent.

As mentioned, if we believe in competition then the mom should be allowed to abort.  The result of competition is sometimes someone loses (in this case the child).  But this is unacceptable.  So, the competition has to start at birth.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Why does the competition have to start at birth?  Because otherwise it's unfair obviously!  The mom has too many advantages over the child if she wants to terminate.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Unfairness being a problem.  But why does the concern about unfairness end the second the baby pops out of the vagina?  It's totally unfair for some kids to be born to loving stable families who wanted them, and other kids to families that didn't want them and cannot provide them even food security.

That's very inconsistent.  Either we should care about competition, we should care about fairness, or we should care about competition and fairness.  You can't just pick one or the other depending on whether or not it lets you prevent someone from choosing to have an abortion.  That's altering the rules of the game to fit the outcome you want.

You want to structure society based upon valid and differing viewpoints, fine.  Sounds great.  But there need to be competing viewpoints that are logically consistent.  At the moment this argument for "pro-life" just sounds like post-rationalization after someone has already made a (religious based?) decision.

Still doesn't sound inconsistent to me. I could understand how it could sound arbitrary, but I don't see any inconsistency in drawing a line somewhere to "begin the competition". We do something similar right now when a person turns 18 (or 21, or 16, etc). But maybe you're right that I'm trying to construct a rational position without resorting to religion, when religion is in fact a primary driver of pro-life positions. But even if the pro-life position stems from religion, I still think I'm better served by acknowledging that, to that person, their position is consistent with their beliefs and engaging from that position.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.
 

I appreciate that you agree with my point, but I feel I should add that I don't view this as a problem particular to the left, or the right, but to all of us. Centrists are just as guilty of this as anyone.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 11:05:19 PM
Unfortunately liberals have now become extremists. They honestly only believe in equality of outcome when it suits them ...

No we aren't.  And we don't believe that.

Can you find me an example of someone who does?  That's a fringe communist belief held by approximately 5 people in a college somewhere.

Toque.

If you don't believe in equality of outcome then I'm wondering what you really believe. Do you use statistics to prove the patriarchy exists ? The use of statistics in this fashion is a very blunt tool to paint a picture of there being a lack of equality.

Liberals like myself do not believe in equality of outcome and don't use statistics to paint the world out to be a repressive patriarchy.

Of course if you aren't in that boat then we are on the same page.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Mikenost12 on February 27, 2019, 11:10:49 PM
  The system is dying and rotting and feels fraudulent and we aren't sure where to direct our rage...

(I've truncated the quote, but my response is to your entire post.)

I get that a lot of people feel like this, but I don't agree. I think now is the best time it's every been to be alive, and the general trend continues to be up.

You mention the press being largely owned by a few powerful people, but this has always been the case. The fact that we're so aware of it now actually suggests progress on this front to me. And we have many robust non-profit, publicly funded, or independent sources. That's not to say there aren't massive structural issues in the news media, but I'm doubtful you could point to a time outside our lifetimes when the situation was any better.

I am concerned about the long term impacts of growing economic inequality, but it is important to remember that life has gotten better for almost every segment of western society over the last 100 years. One of the basic points that MMM makes is that the "bare minimum" middle class lifestyle in America is, in fact, an astonishing life of opulent luxury. The difference in what a "poverty line" lifestyle looked like in 1950 vs now is incredible. If nothing else, a person living in the modern world has access to the richest array of information and art ever available to any member of humanity.

That's not to say there aren't risks, or there aren't serious problems to be dealt with. But, in my opinion, a rational perspective should be based to the the understanding that we've had a huge number of successes on which we can build.

   told myself i wouldn't comment but:

1983 - 90% of US media controlled by 50 companies, 2017 90% of US media controlled by 6 companies (per NY Times and Wiki, though apparently Free Press claims not that high)


https://billmoyers.com/story/media-consolidation-should-anyone-care/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_consolidation


Also Fairnes Doctrine, Equal time doctrine, Personal attack rule, Political editorial rule, all abandoned and not enforced. Their have been real changes in this any many industries like the media, but it is like the frog in the boiling water, you don't notice small changes over long periods of time. Getting rid of FCC rules (or EPA or labor or energy or education laws) does have an impact that's why they lobby to have them removed. No individual can keep up and battle against special interest, the money isn't in lobbyists for consumer interests and their aren't a tremendous amount of obscene paying corporate jobs to reward politicians that work in the public rather than special interests. As in Plato's Republic this is a problem, which is why he proposed the radical notion that the ruling class possessions were outlawed.

 You asked a time when media wasn't as concentrated, 1983. Again erosion of government rules and regulations by special interests. We stopped enforcing antitrust laws, stopped being alarmed by concentration of wealth and power. There was a time before cable news, where media was more centrist...  With cable news and then the internet, owners could argue this are different forms of media, not subject to the old rules meant to govern over air tv and radio, and again push to get rules removed, to the point you can have inflammatory fake stories...

Your right things are getting better for everyone, this is very true I'm glad to be alive now compared to 1215, or 1915 or 1955. Compared to the 50's our society is far more egalitarian, with greater luxuries, the world is getting better. As the Stoics and Mr Money Mustache point out appreciation of what we have, negative visualization, gratitude and perspective is tonic  for hedonic adaptation, the continual boredom with what we have, mindless consumerism, etc...

 However, our society got better when we pointed out inequality and started having public schools, social security, government protecting food and air quality, implementing child labor laws, banning discriminatory practices, trying to eliminate graft and corruption. The public is polarized over the flag or Kapernic or 'tribes' while the rich dismantle our government brick by brick, with people unsure who to focus anger at for things getting worse. Although the 'arc of history is long and bends towards justice' as well as bends towards progress and luxury, that doesn't mean we can't be alarmed at the direction our country is going or what is occurring with our democracy.

real wages have stagnated against inflation, growth in the economy is going to small proportion at the top and the policies they have bought from the government have exacerbated the trend. I believe it is this that is driving frustrations in the 1st world in a way that doesn't occur when everyones standard of living is on the rise from generation to generation. Nassiem Taleb's general search for Black Swans and feeling we undervalue risk is I believe informed by the devastation inflicted on Lebanon, going from the 'Paris of the Middle East' of his youth into civil war. Don't feel fully secure that things will go on forever without some vigilance. Even if the march of humanity is upward, it isn't inevitable without fighting for it, ie... civil rights movement, suffragette movement.

  Numerous studies have show that legislators on both sides of the isle are much more polarized and less likely to vote with the other side, than now. Just because inequality was worse in the 1920's or our politics was more divided during the Reconstruction doesn't mean there isn't some cause for alarm.

Although I can be happy with the sunset, running water, indoor plumbing, my friends, family, health, the internet and phones, dazzling array of foods and beers or whatnot, when I step outside my stoic contentment I feel a duty to speak out against the wealthy dismantling our government. When I talk to younger people many seemed scared about the future in a way my generation didn't. The selling of our government has real consequences. I'm torn between acceptance of things outside my control, appreciation for life and splender and a feeling of duty towards truth our Country perhaps.

    Just today current admin to stop rules about predatory payday loans, no one on this board will fall for them, so who cares right. Maybe another rule about pollution in streams but hey not in our middle class area, who cares right. Cut taxes further on the rich drive up the debt and talk about cutting social security, thats ok.  Allow banks to eliminate various rules on investment to manipulate aluminum and copper, that's ok. High speed traders to jump in front of all trades and extract tiny toll, allow pharma companies to use Gov't block me buying medicine from Canada or Ireland (shouldn't free trade advocates be against this) thats fine. <this is fine meme>.

   this is just anecdotal so I could be wrong, just a thought

 /weak attempt to tie wall of text to original Off Topic - reasons for liberals vs conservatives increased polarization:
 
 inequality pushes division and looking for someone to blame, rapid changes to culture accelerating with media and tech changes are hard for people to adjust to, gerrymandering makes districts ideologically safe and you can appeal more to your base, splintering in the media results in us living in filter bubbles of ideas we agree with, rise of special interests and increased campaign contributions/increasing role of money driving policy, lack of shared enemy or lack of shared national aspiration/end of Cold War, good and bad breakdown of nationalism/patriotism. Overall I like the idea of trying to find common ground and not vilify each other, on actual issues and policy most people can find reasonable compromises or points of agreement
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 27, 2019, 11:13:09 PM
Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.

My mum is 73. She was bought up poor and has always been really left wing. She has recently changed to voting for the right and she won't tell her lefty friends. The world is changing and I think that the left is changing and they are failing to engage a big group of people.

You're being too vague.  How are the people on the left putting you off side?
Is it our desire to provide everyone with better, universal health care, cheaper than you're getting it right now?
Is it because we're calling out people when they're contributing to racism and many people were happier pretending racism wasn't a problem?
Is #metoo going "too far"?

What, precisely, is the left doing that is so very off-putting?

I spent eight years listening to right wingers complain about how off-putting and divisive Obama was.  How he was "Taking away our rights".  And then you ask them to name the rights he'd taken away, and they couldn't.  And to name the divisive behaviour he engaged in, and they couldn't.

So, I'll ask you, in all honesty, what is the left doing to you these days that is hurting so bad and making you suddenly switch sides?

Toque.

No it's comments like these:-

Misogynists, still at it. Yay!
I don't think it is worth arguing with/trying to explain to assholes like steveo.  He is so firmly convinced of his own superior worldview that nothing will sway him.
I mean, kinda? Not their fault they've got a misogynist dad.
but I know outside the journals the red pill gang will trash on it/us/women in general, so putting it here (partly because I am too lazy to move it to my own journal, partly because I think you will find it interesting):
Quote from: FrugalToque
"You've already been warned.  That's enough of gaslighting "you're being irrational" nonsense.  I have given you a well annotated list of exactly how the sexism/the patriarchy affects women.  Knock it off."
"This is bullshit.  I gave you a long list of well supported examples other than abortion."
"Sexism exists.  Sexism came out of the patriarchal nature of our society (which goes back only a few decades to when women had credit cards that said Mrs. Husband's first name, husband's last name on them, couldn't get bank accounts on their own, etc. etc.  Its affects are still clearly, statistically identifiable today, as I have demonstrated.  As everyone knows.)

He's pretending sexism doesn't exist, ignoring pointed mathematical evidence to the contrary, and trolling the female writers on this forum.  This behaviour makes the forum less inclusive and less welcoming to female readers and writers.  I have no desire to cut the audience for this philosophy down by half by letting people carry on like this.

Keeping this forum open and tolerant is one of my jobs here.

Toque."

"I don't know where you're living, but we're all getting tired of this.  The facts are there for anyone with an open mind, which you clearly don't have.
I, specifically, am getting tired of this sort of thing on the forum.
Sexism exists.
It permeates our entire world.
It is as obvious to an unbiased observer as the rotation of the planet, the changing of the climate and greenness of the grass."

I'll add that you personally sent me a message which I deleted and you stated something like "You will stop". It was said it in those terms as well.

So it's people like you and others that clearly resort to aggressive posturing and degrading labels to try and win your argument which is just your opinion and myself and lots of other liberal minded people are getting sick of hearing it and the way it is shoved down our throats. Maybe if you could rationally discuss issues and drop the labels and aggressive posturing you'd have a much better chance of engaging other people.

I'm all for better health care and better access to education. I don't believe the vast majority of people are racist and I think stating that racism is such a big problem today is hilarious. It might be a problem if you live in some backward part of the western world but I don't see racism around at all. I'm unsure what to think about MeToo. I'd need specific details to comment on it but I know that I am not a sexual predator and I don't see how the movement has any relevance to me.

Like I said though it's not policies that are reasonable that are pushing myself and others towards the right. It's people like yourself and other leftists who believe that their opinions are completely factual and everyone has to agree with them and their policies. If they don't you will also shout them down. That behaviour is why threads like this are started and why the left is losing support.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ministashy on February 28, 2019, 01:15:21 AM
To paraphrase steveo :  'I have an Asian wife and part Asian kids, and none of us think racism is a real thing!  Therefore it must not be a big deal!'

'I'm a man, and my wife says she's never been discriminated against, so the patriarchy isn't a real thing, and it's just made up by all those wimmens out there just wanting to be victims and get an unfair advantage over us poor men!'

I've read your responses in thread after thread, and seen how you ignore it when many other people bring up their personal, REAL, lived experiences of discrimination.  Because it didn't happen to you, it's not real.  Other people's lived experiences of discrimination are just anecdata, while your opinions are FACTS.  Backed up by logic and (carefully chosen) statistics, even!  You even bring your own personal manifestos/pity party into completely unrelated threads--like this one.

You keep posting over and over about how everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong wrong wrong and giving liberals a bad name, but you don't dare come out of your own little bubble to actually listen to women and POC, outside of your own family.  You've literally become the internet equivalent of the street preacher standing on the corner, shouting about how all us godless liberals are going to hell because we don't listen to the Holy Word as interpreted by steveo.   And you wonder why the mod is telling you to knock it off?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on February 28, 2019, 03:49:04 AM
@ministashy - thanks for that response. You've proven exactly what I've been stating. If you can't debate the issue at hand attack the person. Good work !

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them. I think your issue is that I don't agree with your all-encompassing world view. I don't think that you can discuss a topic with me rationally and calmly. Just another example of what I think this thread is about.

If you actually want to discuss any issue rationally and calmly I'm more than happy to discuss it. We should simply set some simple parameters around that discussion. Simple things like don't attack the other poster and accept that people can have a different opinion to yourself. Just basic behaviours that respectful human beings should display.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on February 28, 2019, 04:47:22 AM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ministashy on February 28, 2019, 06:07:42 AM
@ministashy - thanks for that response. You've proven exactly what I've been stating. If you can't debate the issue at hand attack the person. Good work !

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them.

Uh huh.  Shades of:  'I have a black friend!  I can't possibly be racist.' 

Quote
If you actually want to discuss any issue rationally and calmly I'm more than happy to discuss it.

Yeah, I don't think so.  I learned a long time ago there's no point in arguing with street preachers, unless you're doing it to be entertained.  (Though I will admit I love how you continue to maintain that you are 'calmly and rationally' posting--as opposed to all us irrational females, I'm sure--while at the same time crying about being picked on by evil lib posters and moderators.  It's really classic!  Two thumbs up!)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 28, 2019, 06:20:53 AM
I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

I agree with ixtap, I have never seen anti-religious or anti-Christian messaging coming from any main leftist group, just anti-people-who-want-to-shove-their-religion-down-my-throat-by-the-force-of-law massaging. I have however seen a lot of Christians who can't seem to tell the difference between the two, and I've seen a lot of anti-left messaging coming from the Christian community my entire life.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian who supports real religious freedom, not "you are free to act like you believe exactly the same thing as me" religious freedom.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on February 28, 2019, 06:41:55 AM
I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

I agree with ixtap, I have never seen anti-religious or anti-Christian messaging coming from any main leftist group, just anti-people-who-want-to-shove-their-religion-down-my-throat-by-the-force-of-law massaging. I have however seen a lot of Christians who can't seem to tell the difference between the two, and I've seen a lot of anti-left messaging coming from the Christian community my entire life.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian who supports real religious freedom, not "you are free to act like you believe exactly the same thing as me" religious freedom.

Note: I may still be a little bitter about this. I am in the middle of looking for a new church after an Elder went on a Sunday-morning rant about how "The Democrats are killing babies after they are born now and we must all be united against this Great Evil!" And then of course the Elders refused to retract the statement or apologize after I pointed out that it was just a bunch of Trumpian lies.

My point is that there is at least as much blame to go around on the Christian side as there is on the Left side for this disconnect, IMHO much much much more blame to go on the Christian side.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on February 28, 2019, 06:49:58 AM
I personally don't like how the leftists seem so hostile to religious people right now. In particular, there is a lot of anti-Christian messaging in entertainment and the media at the moment and that is idiotic since 73.7% of the American people are Christian. You aren't going to accomplish much politically or otherwise when you anger that many people. It also completely ignores the many, many, many examples of positive contributions Christians have made to the United States.

I haven't seen much anti-Christian anywhere. Much more anti-evangelical and tons of anti we should put the Bible above the Constitution, but neither of those are anti-Christian.

I agree with ixtap, I have never seen anti-religious or anti-Christian messaging coming from any main leftist group, just anti-people-who-want-to-shove-their-religion-down-my-throat-by-the-force-of-law massaging. I have however seen a lot of Christians who can't seem to tell the difference between the two, and I've seen a lot of anti-left messaging coming from the Christian community my entire life.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian who supports real religious freedom, not "you are free to act like you believe exactly the same thing as me" religious freedom.

Definitely this. I grew up in a religious area and things like not allowing a football coach to pray with the team before games was an outrage. There was very much an attitude of "we're all Christian here, what's the problem". Except of course, not everyone was Christian but non-Christians weren't willing to risk being ostracized for admitting as much.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 28, 2019, 06:58:00 AM
Here's why it's logically inconsistent.

As mentioned, if we believe in competition then the mom should be allowed to abort.  The result of competition is sometimes someone loses (in this case the child).  But this is unacceptable.  So, the competition has to start at birth.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Why does the competition have to start at birth?  Because otherwise it's unfair obviously!  The mom has too many advantages over the child if she wants to terminate.  OK.  Let's run with that.

Unfairness being a problem.  But why does the concern about unfairness end the second the baby pops out of the vagina?  It's totally unfair for some kids to be born to loving stable families who wanted them, and other kids to families that didn't want them and cannot provide them even food security.

That's very inconsistent.  Either we should care about competition, we should care about fairness, or we should care about competition and fairness.  You can't just pick one or the other depending on whether or not it lets you prevent someone from choosing to have an abortion.  That's altering the rules of the game to fit the outcome you want.

You want to structure society based upon valid and differing viewpoints, fine.  Sounds great.  But there need to be competing viewpoints that are logically consistent.  At the moment this argument for "pro-life" just sounds like post-rationalization after someone has already made a (religious based?) decision.

Still doesn't sound inconsistent to me. I could understand how it could sound arbitrary, but I don't see any inconsistency in drawing a line somewhere to "begin the competition". We do something similar right now when a person turns 18 (or 21, or 16, etc). But maybe you're right that I'm trying to construct a rational position without resorting to religion, when religion is in fact a primary driver of pro-life positions. But even if the pro-life position stems from religion, I still think I'm better served by acknowledging that, to that person, their position is consistent with their beliefs and engaging from that position.

Fair enough, my wording wasn't precise enough.  It's not inconsistent (in that the arbitrary rules are consistently followed).  It's logically inconsistent (in that there's a stated need for competition, which we throw out when things are unfair, unless the unfairness has nothing to do with abortion - then we throw out concern for fairness).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on February 28, 2019, 07:16:41 AM

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them. I think your issue is that I don't agree with your all-encompassing world view. I don't think that you can discuss a topic with me rationally and calmly. Just another example of what I think this thread is about.


You're being decidedly irrational in your approach to this issue, and you're pretending that your opponents are making you be irrational.  You're reporting anecdotes as if they were data.

If anecdotes are important, though, here are some I have because I listen to women, too:

One woman told me how her teacher in elementary school would line the girls up so he could look down their shirts.  They all knew he was leering at them and invading their privacy, but they said nothing because they didn't think anyone would believe them.

In my first year university Algebra class, the professor instructed the "girls" to build a 3d wire frame because their brains were not equipped to understand 3 dimensions without a visual aid.  (Isn't it weird how women just *choose* lower paying careers?  I mean, it's not like anyone is constantly telling them they'll suck at the higher paying ones, right?)

The worse stories come from those who were sexually assaulted and forced to help the authorities cover up the crime.  Nice bunch, those people.

I guess if you've never seen the emails where men try to lay off the women on mat leave or pregnancy leave, if you've never seen the email that says we "need to put the <minority woman> in her place" because she's getting too uppity, you could have some delusion that sexism and racism don't exist.

To resolve your anecdotes and mine, you'd have to stop using anecdotes and start using stats.  And you'd say, "Why do women earn less money than men?"  And someone says, "Hey!  There's just choosing lower paying careers!".

Are you sure they aren't just having their resumes thrown out because they have a female name?  Because that happens, in side by side comparison of identical resumes for John and Jennifer.  (It's worse for John and Jamal, FYI.)  Are you sure it's not just because they're steered away from higher paying careers all the way through their lives?

That all aside, my job here is to make sure that this forum, and its information about Early Retirement, is open and relatable to all: women, men, black, white, gay, straight, poor, middle-class and rich etc. etc.

When people come here and tell women, or minorities, that their lived experiences - which are supported by widespread, well established statistics - are fake, those people don't feel welcome.  I have literally found quotes from women where they feel that the Early Retirement movement is just another Internet White Men's club that constantly talks about having to watch out for gold diggers and other garbage sexist tropes.  Or just try telling a black man who gets randomly "carded" every few days on his walk to work that racism isn't a problem anymore.  Is he going to feel welcome in a place where that goes without argument?

This forum will not be permitted to go in that direction and I'm prepared to exert effort to make sure of it.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on February 28, 2019, 07:43:01 AM

I listen to women all the time. I'm very close to my wife and my mum. I work with women at work and get along great with them. I think your issue is that I don't agree with your all-encompassing world view. I don't think that you can discuss a topic with me rationally and calmly. Just another example of what I think this thread is about.


You're being decidedly irrational in your approach to this issue, and you're pretending that your opponents are making you be irrational.  You're reporting anecdotes as if they were data.

If anecdotes are important, though, here are some I have because I listen to women, too:

One woman told me how her teacher in elementary school would line the girls up so he could look down their shirts.  They all knew he was leering at them and invading their privacy, but they said nothing because they didn't think anyone would believe them.

In my first year university Algebra class, the professor instructed the "girls" to build a 3d wire frame because their brains were not equipped to understand 3 dimensions without a visual aid.  (Isn't it weird how women just *choose* lower paying careers?  I mean, it's not like anyone is constantly telling them they'll suck at the higher paying ones, right?)

The worse stories come from those who were sexually assaulted and forced to help the authorities cover up the crime.  Nice bunch, those people.

I guess if you've never seen the emails where men try to lay off the women on mat leave or pregnancy leave, if you've never seen the email that says we "need to put the <minority woman> in her place" because she's getting too uppity, you could have some delusion that sexism and racism don't exist.

To resolve your anecdotes and mine, you'd have to stop using anecdotes and start using stats.  And you'd say, "Why do women earn less money than men?"  And someone says, "Hey!  There's just choosing lower paying careers!".

Are you sure they aren't just having their resumes thrown out because they have a female name?  Because that happens, in side by side comparison of identical resumes for John and Jennifer.  (It's worse for John and Jamal, FYI.)  Are you sure it's not just because they're steered away from higher paying careers all the way through their lives?

That all aside, my job here is to make sure that this forum, and its information about Early Retirement, is open and relatable to all: women, men, black, white, gay, straight, poor, middle-class and rich etc. etc.

When people come here and tell women, or minorities, that their lived experiences - which are supported by widespread, well established statistics - are fake, those people don't feel welcome.  I have literally found quotes from women where they feel that the Early Retirement movement is just another Internet White Men's club that constantly talks about having to watch out for gold diggers and other garbage sexist tropes.  Or just try telling a black man who gets randomly "carded" every few days on his walk to work that racism isn't a problem anymore.  Is he going to feel welcome in a place where that goes without argument?

This forum will not be permitted to go in that direction and I'm prepared to exert effort to make sure of it.

Toque.

As a woman, who had dealth with BS sexism all my life (not to mention men telling me I was imagining it, being too sensitive, or that it wasn’t a big deal) thank you, Toque, for not allowing it here.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 28, 2019, 08:08:43 AM

As a woman, who had dealth with BS sexism all my life (not to mention men telling me I was imagining it, being too sensitive, or that it wasn’t a big deal) thank you, Toque, for not allowing it here.

And as an older forumite, I can tell you it is better than it was, but that is not saying much.  And the backlash.  Just as in some of the political discussions, opponents take the most extreme views and tout them as standard feminist values, to the point that many women who are actually feminists are discouraged to use the word.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on February 28, 2019, 09:08:48 AM
Fair enough, my wording wasn't precise enough.  It's not inconsistent (in that the arbitrary rules are consistently followed).  It's logically inconsistent (in that there's a stated need for competition, which we throw out when things are unfair, unless the unfairness has nothing to do with abortion - then we throw out concern for fairness).

Fair enough.

I'm saying that I think the adversarial approach we tend to use in arguments is not a productive route for changing people's opinions. If you want to engage with someone on an area of disagreement in a way that has much chance of changing their mind (or yours), the things to do are to assume the best of them, to do your best to understand what they are saying, and to try your best to make their argument for them. There's a quote about never being convinced of anything by your enemies, only by your friends.

Good point. It comes back to the what I think the OP was trying to get at. It's obviously not easy though is it. It also does seem to have gotten worse and I think that is because the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side.
 

I appreciate that you agree with my point, but I feel I should add that I don't view this as a problem particular to the left, or the right, but to all of us. Centrists are just as guilty of this as anyone.

There's a couple different conversations going on here and I've gone back an re-read what you posted Steveo, and I decided I wanted to say more than I did in my first response.

You say the problem is that "the extreme left are putting people like myself off-side". I think you're approaching this in the wrong way. If someone criticizes me, I first try really hard to see their point and maybe understand that I am doing something worthy of criticism (which I often am). I can say that, just in this thread, you've said several things I wouldn't be proud to have said. And beyond the content of the posts, your tone is coming across as combative and mean-spirited. Is that how you want it to come across?

You agreed with my post and then immediately laid the blame on the other side, which rather missed the point. The point I was trying to make is that we each control our own behavior, no one else's. Who am I to be handing out advice on the internet, but I think if you changed the way you approach disagreements, using more kindness, generosity, and open-mindedness, I think you'd have better results.

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Tyson on February 28, 2019, 01:12:20 PM
I think steveo is a great, living example of cognitive dissonance.  He has an existing belief ("misogyny is overblown or non-existent") and knows people in his personal life that conform to that view.  So, whenever someone else with a different experience or even actual data shows that steveo's views are not universal, far from it, he simply discounts the data.  And discounts the anecdotes.  And discounts the personal experience of women that HAVE experienced it.  Because if it doesn't conform to his pre-existing belief, it must be discounted. 

Unlike others here, I don't think he's "an @Sshole", but rather someone with a particular blindspot that no amount of data or contrary experiences can sway.  In many ways it reminds of a lot of arguments I used to get into back in the 80's with people that "don't believe in evolution".  The pattern of behavior is amazingly similar.

And to bring things back to the original posters problems with racism - I'm from the south (Texas) and I've lived a couple other places in the south - Louisiana and Florida.  I'm sorry but those people are racist as hell.  I cannot tell you how many times I was told by "nice white people" that "The neighborhood is getting ruined because the goddamn n@@@@@S are moving in!" or, from my mom "Son, you don't want to wear that, it makes you look like a n@@@@r".  This type of thinking is rampant.  And here's the funny thing - if you ask my mom (or dad or grandparents or cousins or neighbors or good church people) "hey, do you think you're racist", they will emphatically say NO!  Haha. 

Yeah, Faulkner was right, there is a sickness in the soul of the South.  And because it's been ingrained for generations, nobody can even see it.  If you point it out or call them on it, they get mad at YOU for pointing it out and making them feel uncomfortable. 

Damn, I'm so glad I got out of there.  It's pretty much the armpit of America.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on February 28, 2019, 02:18:55 PM
"liberals are anti religious." Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: middo on February 28, 2019, 07:50:50 PM
...
2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

This reminds me of vegans.  And yes, evangelists come in all persuasions and for all things.  If you can call it an "...ism"  then there will be a zealot ready to convince you to follow it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on March 01, 2019, 07:59:47 AM
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the man’s gesture, recalled: “He was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.”
“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: “If I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.”
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: madgeylou on March 01, 2019, 08:23:29 AM
As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

Here's the thing though, I'm pretty sure just about EVERYONE has already heard "The Good News." Non-believers like me are aware that you think we're going to hell and, let's just say, it's not a point of view that resonates with us.

So, if you have to say something, I hope you will approach it as Penn described. But since the vast majority of people are already aware of Christianity, you may as well just keep your religion to yourself because to a lot of people (like me), your beliefs don't resonate at all, and in fact seem to have led to way more destruction than progress over the years, and it's honestly irritating to be treated like I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the urgency of this "hell" thing that I don't even believe in.

And I'm not saying that to knock you or call you crazy or whatever atheists get accused of when we dismiss others' religious beliefs. I'm saying it because I believe that Christianity sucks, just as deeply as you believe that I'm going to hell. (And, side note, I have a lot more objective evidence to support my particular beliefs than Christians have to support theirs.)

On more than one occasion, I have been accused of being disrespectful and dismissive of others' beliefs as though that's somehow more offensive than Christians believing that I'm going to burn for eternity. That's the part that I don't get. Everyone gets to believe what they want, but to me, Christians do a lot more harm than good trying to get the rest of us to go along with ya. I'm not trying to turn anyone else into an atheist, so I appreciate folks not trying to impose their beliefs on me as well.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2019, 08:36:52 AM
...snip
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

I've heard this reasoning before and in theory it's logical and I respect that. However, using that same logic, I could argue that if someone truly believes they are saving me from eternal damnation it would be reasonable for them to be more forceful with their proselytizing, where and why would you draw a line? Like you said, if the truck is coming shouldn't the true believer be willing to tackle me in order to save me?

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: brandon1827 on March 01, 2019, 08:43:27 AM
And to bring things back to the original posters problems with racism - I'm from the south (Texas) and I've lived a couple other places in the south - Louisiana and Florida.  I'm sorry but those people are racist as hell.  I cannot tell you how many times I was told by "nice white people" that "The neighborhood is getting ruined because the goddamn n@@@@@S are moving in!" or, from my mom "Son, you don't want to wear that, it makes you look like a n@@@@r".  This type of thinking is rampant.  And here's the funny thing - if you ask my mom (or dad or grandparents or cousins or neighbors or good church people) "hey, do you think you're racist", they will emphatically say NO!  Haha. 

Yeah, Faulkner was right, there is a sickness in the soul of the South.  And because it's been ingrained for generations, nobody can even see it.  If you point it out or call them on it, they get mad at YOU for pointing it out and making them feel uncomfortable. 

I can echo this 100%. I was born and raised in rural middle Tennessee. After serving my country and spending some time abroad, I eventually found myself back here. When I was reading this post, it resonated so much and mirrored many of my experiences here growing up. Luckily, my parents didn't teach me to hate other people...but the culture in the south is completely intertwined with racism. It's just so ingrained here and displayed on an almost daily basis...but like Tyort1 said, if you ever asked any of these people if they are racists, after telling you to go to hell, they would loudly and emphatically deny it. Racism is everywhere down here and has been for generations. It gets passed down from one generation to the next. Some (like my parents) don't explicitly teach their children to be racists, but it's such a way of life here and so institutional that it seems to perpetuate itself.

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2019, 08:55:08 AM
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the man’s gesture, recalled: “He was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.”
“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: “If I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.”
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: brandon1827 on March 01, 2019, 08:59:14 AM

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

I don't have anything meaningful to add...I just love this post so much I had to comment.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 01, 2019, 09:02:10 AM
What bugs me about evangelists is that a big chunk of their time seems to be spent taking the word to people who are already Christians, just not the same variety of Christian.  I'm at the point that when people ring my doorbell, I am super upfront about being Anglican, and then I say, I won't waste their time, goodbye.

I grew up in a technically secular society that was heavily dominated by the Church (let me translate that, I grew up in Québec before la Révolution tranquille) and the Catholic church influenced/dominated everything.

There is still a crucifix in the National Assembly (cultural heritage, don't you know - and look at the French version of O Canada). I don't want to ever live in a society that is dominated by a religion, irregardless of the religion.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2019, 09:07:34 AM

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

I don't have anything meaningful to add...I just love this post so much I had to comment.

Good points, and I would add that Penn's scenario looks at only one of many possibilities, that of a Christian proselytizing to a non-believer. How would a Christian feel about a Muslim informing them that they're headed for eternal damnation? How often would that exchange be met with a respectful "thank you for caring enough about me to share"?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2019, 09:25:53 AM

I like this story.  It leaves a nice warm feeling in the cockles of my heart.  Or maybe in the subcockle region.  Generally, this kinda explains my reasoning for treating religious people who are only being mildly obnoxious about "spreading the good news" with respect as well.  I get where they're coming from, so I bite my tongue and politely tolerate what's happening.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it's not often reciprocated from what I've seen.  When an atheist sees a religious person wasting his life on meaningless ritual, prayer, and a search for morality in two thousand year old words written by serial slave owners, wife beaters, fans of capital punishment, polygamists sometimes they do speak up as well.  For the atheist you're not going to hell . . . it's something much more important.  You're wasting the only time you'll ever have on Earth kowtowing to the rough equivalent of old timey Harry Potter books, and making important life choices based on the same.

As mentioned, it's natural to want to try to push someone out of the way of that bus.  I rarely see tolerance for an atheist using logic to do so though.  It would be nice for people to remember that folks like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, etc. are doing what they do for the same reasons that the Gideons hand out bibles.  They're trying to make the world a better place too.

Agreed. This is pretty much my reaction, as well. But I generally don't say it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Tyson on March 01, 2019, 11:02:44 AM
And to bring things back to the original posters problems with racism - I'm from the south (Texas) and I've lived a couple other places in the south - Louisiana and Florida.  I'm sorry but those people are racist as hell.  I cannot tell you how many times I was told by "nice white people" that "The neighborhood is getting ruined because the goddamn n@@@@@S are moving in!" or, from my mom "Son, you don't want to wear that, it makes you look like a n@@@@r".  This type of thinking is rampant.  And here's the funny thing - if you ask my mom (or dad or grandparents or cousins or neighbors or good church people) "hey, do you think you're racist", they will emphatically say NO!  Haha. 

Yeah, Faulkner was right, there is a sickness in the soul of the South.  And because it's been ingrained for generations, nobody can even see it.  If you point it out or call them on it, they get mad at YOU for pointing it out and making them feel uncomfortable. 

I can echo this 100%. I was born and raised in rural middle Tennessee. After serving my country and spending some time abroad, I eventually found myself back here. When I was reading this post, it resonated so much and mirrored many of my experiences here growing up. Luckily, my parents didn't teach me to hate other people...but the culture in the south is completely intertwined with racism. It's just so ingrained here and displayed on an almost daily basis...but like Tyort1 said, if you ever asked any of these people if they are racists, after telling you to go to hell, they would loudly and emphatically deny it. Racism is everywhere down here and has been for generations. It gets passed down from one generation to the next. Some (like my parents) don't explicitly teach their children to be racists, but it's such a way of life here and so institutional that it seems to perpetuate itself.

Thanks Brandon!  And here's the thing - most of these people ARE nice people.  It just so happens that they are nice people who are also very racist.  Or, as it was put to me on more than one occasion, "well, we just don't like their kind". 

I was a military brat, so I got to get around a bit more and see the world a bit, just like you.  It's amazing the perspective it gives you when you come back home.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mm1970 on March 01, 2019, 11:47:23 AM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Malloy on March 01, 2019, 12:26:50 PM

ericrugiero, it DOESNT have to be this way. Beneath the vicious malintent of those who seek to fan the flames of disagreement in this nation, lies fundamental differences in philospohy and morality. That will NEVER change. But what CAN change is that we, as people become tolerant and respectful of those that have different moral and philosophical convictions. I may despise the values many of my leftist family and friends have, but I am respectful and tolerant of them. I do not despise them as people. I'm atheist and disagree with much of the central tenets of Christianity. Yet I respect these people and tolerate their belief system. We (my social circle) all seem to get along pretty well, that is, except for the rabblerousers that are intolerant and disrespectful. You know who you are.

I don't know if this is the solution to partisanship.  If you find yourself despising the values of your friends, that doesn't sound like much of a friendship to me.  Being respectful and tolerant of values you despise is the solution to how you handle working with or living in a neighborhood with people you don't have much to do with otherwise.  But I wouldn't let people whose values I despised into my life voluntarily.  I can be friends with someone I disagree with, but despise their values?  Nah. 

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 01, 2019, 01:24:50 PM
1983 - 90% of US media controlled by 50 companies, 2017 90% of US media controlled by 6 companies (per NY Times and Wiki, though apparently Free Press claims not that high)
...
You asked a time when media wasn't as concentrated, 1983.

Happily, I don't think we're actually in much disagreement here. What I actually said was:

I'm doubtful you could point to a time outside our lifetimes when the situation was any better.

And I was alive in 1983 (though I understand you may not have been). I used the language I did intentionally because I agree the last few years have seen, at best, some regression in terms of the quality and robustness of news. Even with those setbacks, the overall trend has been clearly positive over a long time scale.

Your right things are getting better for everyone, this is very true I'm glad to be alive now compared to 1215, or 1915 or 1955. Compared to the 50's our society is far more egalitarian, with greater luxuries, the world is getting better.

So lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater is all I'm saying. Let us realize that so much of what we have done has worked. The job isn't done (not even close), but lets build on our successes rather than tear down our institutions. 

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MasterStache on March 01, 2019, 04:51:56 PM
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the man’s gesture, recalled: “He was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.”
“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: “If I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.”
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

Man, being told I am going to hell if I don't behave/believe a certain way and being shoved to the ground to avoid a hypothetical "truck." That's some hard core proselytizing. (-;
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 01, 2019, 07:41:39 PM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2019, 07:58:06 PM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Or...

Maybe you are the one who struggles to see the problem.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 01, 2019, 08:52:39 PM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Or...

Maybe you are the one who struggles to see the problem.

There are two issues here:-

1. A disagreement of a belief system. That is fine. You are allowed to disagree. I have no problems with this.
2. The over the top reaction towards people (like myself) who aren't buying the Kool Aid. I think that this thread is about this reaction and stating it is wrong.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on March 01, 2019, 08:57:24 PM
e.
ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

That link was really helpful. Thank you!
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 01, 2019, 09:18:41 PM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 01, 2019, 09:58:08 PM
The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

No. This is another example of why this thread was started. The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment. Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on March 02, 2019, 06:27:30 AM
Hey @steveo, I actually want to thank you for the posts you make. I'm in the military, and have been for my entire adult life. I love it, I actually served when it was technically illegal, but the military is not necessarily a bastion of academic discourse. The rise of identity politics happened, and suddenly there was a new vocabulary I did NOT understand. What the fuck was microagression? What did woke mean? What the ever loving fuck was gaslighting?

I've slowly been expanding my understanding of these new themes, but one definition has always remained a struggle because I'd never experienced it personally. Thanks to you, and to the departed Orange guy, I finally, finally understand what gaslighting means. I'm actually quite delighted to finally get it.

I love this post.

I also love Toque.

ETA:
I found this article to be very informative.  I haven't really had the displeasure of dealing with either kind of person IRL.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

I find this really really bizarre. These seem like pretty strong comments and I wonder why you would imply that I am like that. I guess it comes back to my point and the reason for this thread being started. It appears that leftists today cannot accept that people can have different opinions.

I'm not sexist or a narcissist or a gaslighter or anything at all like that. I'm a normal average middle aged man who gets along with basically everyone in my life and who doesn't have problems in society.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society. I don't buy that line. I'm all for helping out people who have tougher upbringings. I'm all for better education and health care. My beliefs are for some bizarre reason considered extreme and if I don't agree with extremist leftists than I'm the one with the problem.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

Look @steveo, let's have a little détente, because I do understand some of what you're expressing here. I'm not particularly liberal. I grew up in deep red rural environment, I'm a practicing Christian, I'm almost 40 years old, and I'm a commissioned officer for the U.S. military. I was being very factual when I said that the true surge of identity politics broke around, rather than over me. I found it all really fucking confusing, but I did try to understand. And right when I was finally getting a grasp on what exactly this 'privilege' thing was, everyone else had moved onto intersectionality.

Do I, in my heart of hearts find some of the modern conversation about race and gender and intersectionality and safe spaces and being woke ridiculous? Yes, I do. Sometimes I really, really have to control myself to avoid rolling my eyes over some of the sound and fury. I totally understand wanting to push back against the pressure.

But to push back so hard that you flat out do not believe there is any institutionalized racism, or any institutionalized gender discrimination inside western society is very extreme. I urge you not to use the ridiculousness of the fringe to reject what the central part of the movement is saying. What's the harm in taking a moment and considering what people are saying? I did it, and it good for my soul.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 02, 2019, 06:45:30 AM
The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

No. This is another example of why this thread was started. The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment. Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MDM on March 02, 2019, 07:40:54 AM
Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".
If one is to use life expectancy as a measure of discrimination, then one must consider Why is life expectancy longer for women than it is for men? - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-life-expectancy-lo/).

Just to be clear: this is not an argument that discrimination does not exist.  It is an opinion that the use of life expectancy as a measure of discrimination may not be a good idea.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 02, 2019, 08:04:49 AM
steveo, here, you make the argument that "extreme leftists" reacted poorly to your factual statement.

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

But in recent posts, it now seems to be about a difference in opinion.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment.

Differences in opinion, subjective assessments. But interestingly enough, you also immediatley flip back to us having a problem identifying objective facts:

Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

It's hard to argue against why you think our discourse is so bad because I can't tell whether you genuinely think your beliefs are fact supported while ours are not (I obviously disagree), or whether you think we're just not tolerant enough of differing opinions (which we of course see as denial of objective reality).

So I'm just going argue against the statement below, if you'll allow me. I am a calm person and I'm a rational person, and I think you'll find that reflected in my counterargument.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society.

I really want to tackle both issues, but I recognize that it's probably best to stay focused. We've talked more about the patriarchy thing in the last several posts, and I consider institutional racism a virtual slam-dunk anyway, so I'll focus on the patriarchy for now.

The Western World as a Repressive Patriarchy


I'm going to use the following definition of the word patriarchy,

Quote
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

and I'm going to use the United States as a proxy for the Western World.

Just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. 1 Just 21% of congress is female. 2 Every US President and Vice President has been male. For the first time in 2019, more than 10% (18%) of wide release studio films will have a female director at the helm.  3

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on you to explain why such disparities exist, rather than incumbent on me to show that the disparities are driven by a patriarchal society, but I'll do the latter anyway. The first and most obvious reason is simple consequence: The "boy's club" effect. Man have the power and make the rules, so it's impossible for there not to be some level of gate keeping.

Women's suffrage in the United States is only 99 years old. Much of the country was built while explicitly leaving women out of the process. Though it was Federal law, some states didn't ratify the amendment until decades later, which points to lingering hostility towards the idea of women voting even after it became legal.

Title IX, which ended legal discrimination by sex in education, is less than 50 years old. Women have just now reached parity with men when it comes to the attainment of 4 year degrees. 4 Finding more representation in prestige professions and executive leadership is clearly more difficult when you have faced legal or cultural discrimination on your path to higher education.

In addition to explicit, and legislatively permitted gate keeping, there is a large cultural element at play that elevates men at the expense of women. 6 in 10 women report having been sexually harassed, with more than half of them saying that it happened in the workplace. 5 Even pointing out that this is a problem is starting to face a growing backlash in society.

Consider how women of consequence are covered by the media. Everyone knows who Buzz Aldrin is. The world's most famous second place finisher. Comparatively fewer people have heard of Margaret Hamilton, the computer scientist whose software helped put Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon. Watch closely how the news media covers Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and the other female presidential candidates as the 2020 race heats up. Try and observe how much attention is given to things like emotional temperament, and then compare this to how the same or similar behavior is covered, not covered, or just considered permissible by men. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had an absolute meltdown in his confirmation hearing, during which he was flippant with Senators, refused to answer questions, and unless you're gullible enough to think that "Devil's Triangle" refers to a drinking game, almost certainly lied. None of this was disqualifying to make him one of the most powerful people in the country. I strongly believe that the public and the media has a blind spot for men when it comes to behavior that would be considered non-permissible for women.

Women struggle for adequate representation in popular media as well. An overwhelming majority of on screen speaking roles in Hollywood are held by men. 6 Male speaking lines dominate Oscar winning films. It's not even close. 7 The popular culture that we make and that we elevate sends a pretty clear message. Most people of consequence are men, while women are relegated to supporting roles. These attitudes are found up and down every facet of our society, and they contribute to the empirical fact that women are underrepresented in positions of power.

---

I'm interested to hear why you either don't think the facts support my conclusion, or in what way I'm irrational or disrespectful. T.I.A.

References:

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies)

2https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018 (https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018)

3https://www.thewrap.com/female-director-woman-hollywood-studio-progress-five-times-more-history/ (https://www.thewrap.com/female-director-woman-hollywood-studio-progress-five-times-more-history/)

4https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/)

5http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/)

6https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/ (https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/)

7https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXeensjU0AAG5uH.jpg:large (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXeensjU0AAG5uH.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 02, 2019, 08:15:04 AM
Because I can't help myself, here's a post I once made on systemic racism and FIRE. Most of it works for institutionalized racism at large.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-this-fire-concept-as-it-exists-is-so-difficult-for-minorities-to-achieve/msg2010910/#msg2010910 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-this-fire-concept-as-it-exists-is-so-difficult-for-minorities-to-achieve/msg2010910/#msg2010910)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2019, 10:05:24 AM
Thanks for posting that so I didn't need to mathlete.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on March 02, 2019, 04:06:33 PM
I'm socially very left wing (pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-refugee, pro-immigration etc) but financially I support low taxes. I also support people taking care of their own shit and not relying on progressive taxation to make society more "equal"

I live in a very economically progressive country (Australia) and it's hard to find anyone who agrees with me on economic issues. Seems like everyone just wants a society that's more equal in outcome, even if that means hand outs.

I could understand some handouts for people who are mentally or physically infirm or who are old and lost their jobs, but it seems to me most Australians have very little work ethic other than to do the bare minimum.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 05:49:54 AM
But to push back so hard that you flat out do not believe there is any institutionalized racism, or any institutionalized gender discrimination inside western society is very extreme. I urge you not to use the ridiculousness of the fringe to reject what the central part of the movement is saying. What's the harm in taking a moment and considering what people are saying? I did it, and it good for my soul.

I don't really believe in institutionalized racism today. It sounds over the top. If anything I see the opposite now but maybe there is a reason for that. These issues are complex. Sure there was institutionalized racism in the past and maybe now due to positive discrimination people that were discriminated against now actually receive positive discrimination and maybe that is okay.

I am in the middle or at least I think I am. My problem is with the extreme leftists. They have labelled me as sexist or racist which is farcical. I'm not pushing back hard as well. Institutionalized racism is a difficult topic. To justify that I'd only really be comfortable if you could prove to me that there were laws against people because of the colour of their skin or their background which now occurs (maybe for a good reason) but in a positive way for minorities.

My opinion is that we have to be rational and be willing to look at the complexity of the situation right now. The comments from the extreme left sound way over the top.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 05:55:19 AM
The problem is that leftists tend to recognize the difference between opinions and facts. The patriarchy is a fact. Institutional racism is a fact

No. This is another example of why this thread was started. The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment. Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

For your main point maybe they eat more meat as a cultural bias. I'm serious as well. Your strong opinion is honestly to me ridiculous. You have to be able to take a step back and view an issue rationally without filling your head with a pre-programmed spiel.

My response to this is two fold. Firstly is it a big difference in is it significant and if it is why is it occurring and let's work out details. If the details state it's because of overt racism then let's fix that problem. If the reality is because they eat too much meat then let's educate that demographic on that.

I noticed you didn't highlight Mexicans in your statistics and maybe that is because Mexicans eat more beans.

I don't know the answer but I'm not jumping to a conclusion that racism is the cause.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: fuzzy math on March 03, 2019, 07:27:23 AM
O_o

For the record Steveo, none of the issues here that everyone seems to have with you are "extreme leftist" points. It seems really that you want to be able to hide under the umbrella of being liberal "hey look at me I'm not racist" when in reality your viewpoints highlight that you consider us all 'other' or different from you. I would challenge you labeling yourself as liberal, in the same way that the conservatives ate Tomi Lerhen for lunch when she espoused pro-choice views. There are a view essential  viewpoints to the Democratic Party and you aren't really passing the entrance exam. Everything you've said here is antithetical to being liberal. You might not see racism, your wife might not see it, but you are assuming that your children of color never will, and that's a pretty bold assumption. Why not fight to make the world a better place for their sake.

If 50 people are telling you the sky is grey, you ought to consider that the sky might actually be that color, even if you can't see it yourself.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on March 03, 2019, 07:40:52 AM

I am in the middle or at least I think I am. My problem is with the extreme leftists. They have labelled me as sexist or racist which is farcical. I'm not pushing back hard as well. Institutionalized racism is a difficult topic. To justify that I'd only really be comfortable if you could prove to me that there were laws against people because of the colour of their skin or their background which now occurs (maybe for a good reason) but in a positive way for minorities.

I don't quite understand the gist of this paragraph, and I'd like to understand your view point better. Can you elaborate, or restate?

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 03, 2019, 10:53:21 AM
"I am in the middle or at least I think I am."

You're not. Not even close.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on March 03, 2019, 11:37:41 AM
steveo, here, you make the argument that "extreme leftists" reacted poorly to your factual statement.

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

But in recent posts, it now seems to be about a difference in opinion.

Maybe it's not me with the problem. Maybe it's the leftists who can't seem to discuss issues calmly, rationally and with respect for differences of opinion.

The patriarchy and it's influence is a subjective assessment of different cultures. Institutionalised racism is another subjective assessment.

Differences in opinion, subjective assessments. But interestingly enough, you also immediatley flip back to us having a problem identifying objective facts:

Another problem that extreme leftists have is clearly an inability to differentiate between facts and theories. Even within that theory you need to be rational - how bad is the racism for instance.

It's hard to argue against why you think our discourse is so bad because I can't tell whether you genuinely think your beliefs are fact supported while ours are not (I obviously disagree), or whether you think we're just not tolerant enough of differing opinions (which we of course see as denial of objective reality).

So I'm just going argue against the statement below, if you'll allow me. I am a calm person and I'm a rational person, and I think you'll find that reflected in my counterargument.

I don't believe that the western world is a repressive patriarchy. I don't believe that racism is somehow institutionalised within society.

I really want to tackle both issues, but I recognize that it's probably best to stay focused. We've talked more about the patriarchy thing in the last several posts, and I consider institutional racism a virtual slam-dunk anyway, so I'll focus on the patriarchy for now.

The Western World as a Repressive Patriarchy


I'm going to use the following definition of the word patriarchy,

Quote
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

and I'm going to use the United States as a proxy for the Western World.

Just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. 1 Just 21% of congress is female. 2 Every US President and Vice President has been male. For the first time in 2019, more than 10% (18%) of wide release studio films will have a female director at the helm.  3

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on you to explain why such disparities exist, rather than incumbent on me to show that the disparities are driven by a patriarchal society, but I'll do the latter anyway. The first and most obvious reason is simple consequence: The "boy's club" effect. Man have the power and make the rules, so it's impossible for there not to be some level of gate keeping.

Women's suffrage in the United States is only 99 years old. Much of the country was built while explicitly leaving women out of the process. Though it was Federal law, some states didn't ratify the amendment until decades later, which points to lingering hostility towards the idea of women voting even after it became legal.

Title IX, which ended legal discrimination by sex in education, is less than 50 years old. Women have just now reached parity with men when it comes to the attainment of 4 year degrees. 4 Finding more representation in prestige professions and executive leadership is clearly more difficult when you have faced legal or cultural discrimination on your path to higher education.

In addition to explicit, and legislatively permitted gate keeping, there is a large cultural element at play that elevates men at the expense of women. 6 in 10 women report having been sexually harassed, with more than half of them saying that it happened in the workplace. 5 Even pointing out that this is a problem is starting to face a growing backlash in society.

Consider how women of consequence are covered by the media. Everyone knows who Buzz Aldrin is. The world's most famous second place finisher. Comparatively fewer people have heard of Margaret Hamilton, the computer scientist whose software helped put Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon. Watch closely how the news media covers Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and the other female presidential candidates as the 2020 race heats up. Try and observe how much attention is given to things like emotional temperament, and then compare this to how the same or similar behavior is covered, not covered, or just considered permissible by men. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had an absolute meltdown in his confirmation hearing, during which he was flippant with Senators, refused to answer questions, and unless you're gullible enough to think that "Devil's Triangle" refers to a drinking game, almost certainly lied. None of this was disqualifying to make him one of the most powerful people in the country. I strongly believe that the public and the media has a blind spot for men when it comes to behavior that would be considered non-permissible for women.

Women struggle for adequate representation in popular media as well. An overwhelming majority of on screen speaking roles in Hollywood are held by men. 6 Male speaking lines dominate Oscar winning films. It's not even close. 7 The popular culture that we make and that we elevate sends a pretty clear message. Most people of consequence are men, while women are relegated to supporting roles. These attitudes are found up and down every facet of our society, and they contribute to the empirical fact that women are underrepresented in positions of power.

---

I'm interested to hear why you either don't think the facts support my conclusion, or in what way I'm irrational or disrespectful. T.I.A.

References:

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies)

2https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018 (https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018)

3https://www.thewrap.com/female-director-woman-hollywood-studio-progress-five-times-more-history/ (https://www.thewrap.com/female-director-woman-hollywood-studio-progress-five-times-more-history/)

4https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/)

5http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/)

6https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/ (https://pudding.cool/2017/03/film-dialogue/)

7https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXeensjU0AAG5uH.jpg:large (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXeensjU0AAG5uH.jpg:large)

You defined patriarchy above but you didn't define "institutional".  If you mean something that's an official rule I will disagree with you.  If you mean something that happens regularly, I agree that institutional patriarchy (and racism) is an issue.  I have seen women be treated differently because they are women.  This seems to be a much larger effect the higher they rise. 

At the lower levels in my company, they are treated fairly or even given preference.  For example, we were interviewing for an open job and there was an impressive female candidate along with several impressive male candidates.  My boss told me "She was pretty impressive, if she ends up being pretty even with the others we should probably hire her because she is woman." 

On the other hand, our plant manager is woman.  She does a fairly good job overall but she struggles to gain the respect of many of the men who work for her.  I believe this is largely because she is a woman and that reflects very poorly on the men who hold that against her.  It's not something she couldn't overcome but it's also not fair to her.

So, I guess I agree with you that racism and patriarchy both happen in our country on a regular basis and they are both bad.  (The caveat I would add is that sometimes both terms are applied when they are not accurate.) 

The question becomes, what do we do about it?  I don't like the idea of forcing companies to hire a certain percentage or giving an unfair advantage to minorities/women.  The reason is, that is unfair to both the qualified minorities/women and to the people who didn't get the job.  This can make racism/sexism worse rather than better.  For example, if the most qualified candidate is a black woman, people wonder if she got the job because she is a black woman.  This isn't fair to her if she really was the most qualified.  If a white man is the most qualified but doesn't get the job, this can be a tough pill for him to swallow and can lead to hard feelings. 

To me, the only true long term solution is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or sex.  When there is real racism or sexism we all must be willing to speak up.  But, I think that treating someone better just because of their race or sex is also racist and will breed resentment making things worse in the long run. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 03, 2019, 12:10:02 PM
"To me, the only true long term solution is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or sex.  When there is real racism or sexism we all must be willing to speak up.  But, I think that treating someone better just because of their race or sex is also racist and will breed resentment making things worse in the long run." 

In an ideal world that would be great. That was what MLK spoke about in his speech, imagining a day "that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Are we there yet? Not by a long shot. Because say now that black people can vote for example means that there is no other discrimination going on? No. In my state alone, there was a huge amount of gerrymandering done to make it so any individual black vote didn't matter. To the extent the largest African American University in the state, literally had the university cut in half, so half the university voted in one county, half in another, so to reduce the impact of their votes. There are so many examples out there like this.

I see telling black people, yeah yeah, you and your parents and your parents before you (and before that they were slaves) you were discriminated against. And due to that past discrimination you and your children are much less likely to have college educations, home ownership, and equal job opportunities.  And yeah there still is lots of informal discrimination going on, including what kind of name is on your resume, what kind of medical care you get and even whether you are stopped by the police. But, it's against the law now. And we did the bare minimum since it's against the law, so you should be cool with everything.

Kind of like seeing someone standing in a hole that your ancestors dug, and not offering to help them out of the hole because hey, you yourself didn't dig the hole and you don't plan on digging future holes.

I have no problem with colleges and universities wanting to have a more diverse student population, one from multiple backgrounds, and using that as one of many factors to decide who they admit to their college or university.

 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ericrugiero on March 03, 2019, 01:17:26 PM
I see your point and I'm not at all opposed to programs to give minorities additional training, scholarships for minorities, or other things like that.  But, if we take it to far it will be counter productive in the long run. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Tyson on March 03, 2019, 03:32:56 PM
I see your point and I'm not at all opposed to programs to give minorities additional training, scholarships for minorities, or other things like that.  But, if we take it to far it will be counter productive in the long run.

We have so far to go before we even get to ‘far enough’ that we really don’t have to worry about ‘too far’ anytime soon. 

Re: steveo, he seems to think that if there are no explicitly racist laws, that systemic racism doesn’t exist.  And, as I predicted, when presented with evidence that racism does exit he simply ignores it and digs his heels in.  Typical of his kind.  He’s the type of person that thinks “hey, I’M not racist, so therefore no one else is either.”  Or “Since I don’t see people in my immediate vicinity engage explicitly racist behavior, racism doesn’t exist.”  He should take a trip to Texas or Georgia or Mississippi and he’d quickly learn how very wrong he is.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 03, 2019, 08:02:53 PM
Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

For your main point maybe they eat more meat as a cultural bias. I'm serious as well. Your strong opinion is honestly to me ridiculous. You have to be able to take a step back and view an issue rationally without filling your head with a pre-programmed spiel.

My response to this is two fold. Firstly is it a big difference in is it significant and if it is why is it occurring and let's work out details. If the details state it's because of overt racism then let's fix that problem. If the reality is because they eat too much meat then let's educate that demographic on that.

I noticed you didn't highlight Mexicans in your statistics and maybe that is because Mexicans eat more beans.

I don't know the answer but I'm not jumping to a conclusion that racism is the cause.

I gave you facts.  You made up a story about meat.

Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26366984
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

You somehow have tricked yourself into thinking you have some kind of superior, objective point of view, yet you reply to objective facts with stories to support your biases.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: middo on March 03, 2019, 08:48:06 PM
Okay.  Let's make sure we're looking at objective facts and not "subjective" "theories".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984780/
Life expectancy of a black man in America: 72.2 years
Life expectancy of a white man in America: 76.6 years

And you can see it's always been lagging for black men.  So what's the deal there?  Is there a problem in American society of treating black people badly, even since the ages of slavery, that's leading to their shortened life spans?  Or is there a genetic tendency among people with more melanin to die sooner?

Or does it correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels, and black people tend to be limited to the lower income levels that lead to this disparity?

What is your answer, when presented with facts like this, that does not involve a society with is systematically racist in its presumptions about health, education, poverty, access to work and everything else?

Toque.

For your main point maybe they eat more meat as a cultural bias. I'm serious as well. Your strong opinion is honestly to me ridiculous. You have to be able to take a step back and view an issue rationally without filling your head with a pre-programmed spiel.

My response to this is two fold. Firstly is it a big difference in is it significant and if it is why is it occurring and let's work out details. If the details state it's because of overt racism then let's fix that problem. If the reality is because they eat too much meat then let's educate that demographic on that.

I noticed you didn't highlight Mexicans in your statistics and maybe that is because Mexicans eat more beans.

I don't know the answer but I'm not jumping to a conclusion that racism is the cause.

I gave you facts.  You made up a story about meat.

Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26366984
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

You somehow have tricked yourself into thinking you have some kind of superior, objective point of view, yet you reply to objective facts with stories to support your biases.

Toque.

Racism and Sexism go a lot further than this.  People who think they are not racist or sexist still make decisions when hiring to hire someone who is most like them, as they see themselves as competent.  This causes difficulties for minorities (in the field of employment) to get employment and to get promotions.

Source: http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 11:30:02 PM
steveo, here, you make the argument that "extreme leftists" reacted poorly to your factual statement.
...
But in recent posts, it now seems to be about a difference in opinion.

I hope this makes sense to you but I'll rephrase it to try and clarify. There is a difference in opinion and because I have a difference in opinion to leftists (I think extreme is a fair word) then I get personally attacked. You just have to read some of the comments here to see that. If you can't see it that is cool but I definitely feel that comments like misogynist and narcissist are over the top.

I have no problems with your post here because I don't see the personal attacks.

you also immediatley flip back to us having a problem identifying objective facts:

An objective fact is something that is clearly defined and proven. Some of the statistics used in this thread are not objective facts. If I was going to play that game it's really simple. I just state men commit suicide more than women and that is proof of the matriarchy and that men are discriminated against. I don't believe this but it is the exact same argument being used throughout this thread. The issue of male suicide is complex just like other societal issues.

It's hard to argue against why you think our discourse is so bad because I can't tell whether you genuinely think your beliefs are fact supported while ours are not (I obviously disagree), or whether you think we're just not tolerant enough of differing opinions (which we of course see as denial of objective reality).

This is tough. I don't believe either of our beliefs can be proven with statistical analyses.

So I'm just going argue against the statement below, if you'll allow me. I am a calm person and I'm a rational person, and I think you'll find that reflected in my counterargument.

I like calm.

Just 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. 1 Just 21% of congress is female. 2 Every US President and Vice President has been male. For the first time in 2019, more than 10% (18%) of wide release studio films will have a female director at the helm.  3

I get it. It appears as if women are discriminated against if you use the right statistics. I believe though the issue is much more complex than what you state. A good example is your comment that the number of female directors in charge has increased. The world has changed a lot. At some point women couldn't vote. Up until very recently gay people couldn't get legally married. These instances of institutionalized racism/sexism/bigotry are only slowly being amended. The problem is that it takes time to turn the ship around in these instances. You don't just go out and change a law and then everything changes. There are cultural factors involved as well. My example of black people eating more meat is a good one. Beans are one of the healthiest foods in the planet and Mexicans tend to eat them whereas I don't believe black people do but black people may eat more meat.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-hispanic-paradox-why-do-latinos-live-longer/

Quote
Hispanics living in the United States tend to have less education, a higher poverty rate, and worse access to health care. They represent, like, the ultimate paradigm of health care disparities. The highest rate of uninsured, the lowest rates of health screening and counseling, and the poorest levels of blood pressure and blood sugar control, and other measures of deficient quality of care. So, wow, Hispanics living in the U.S. must just have dismal public health statistics, right?

According to the latest national data, the life expectancy of white men and women was 76 and 81. The lives of black men and women, cut short by years. How do Hispanics do? Amazingly, they beat out everyone. Hispanics live the longest.

This has been called the Hispanic Paradox. Hispanics have a 24% lower risk of premature death, and lower risks of 9 out of the leading 15 causes of death—notably less cancer and heart disease. This was first noticed 30 years ago, but understandably met with great criticism.

More men than women may want the big job. More men may do a better job than women. People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate. Maybe better female candidates will come along over time. The point is trying to simplify complex issues into a simple statement about the patriarchy and racism etc is not in my opinion good enough.

Personally, I think it should be incumbent on you to explain why such disparities exist, rather than incumbent on me to show that the disparities are driven by a patriarchal society, but I'll do the latter anyway. The first and most obvious reason is simple consequence: The "boy's club" effect. Man have the power and make the rules, so it's impossible for there not to be some level of gate keeping.

I read the rest of this and you are stating similar facts to myself.

Consider how women of consequence are covered by the media.

You are right but it's not a patriarchal decision. It's you and me and everyone else voting with their actions. For some reason LeBron James sells more tickets/media attention etc than do women working as computer scientists.

My mum's friend (a female) is a fantastic scientist. She is a gun in her field. Unfortunately the vast mass of society don't care.

These attitudes are found up and down every facet of our society, and they contribute to the empirical fact that women are underrepresented in positions of power.

I get it. The difference in our thinking is that you blame the patriarchy whereas I state well that is what society currently chooses. It's people making their own little decisions over time and it's really tough to turn things around quickly.

I'm interested to hear why you either don't think the facts support my conclusion, or in what way I'm irrational or disrespectful. T.I.A.

I hope I answered your comments fairly enough within a post on an Internet forum. I definitely don't view you as irrational or disrespectful.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 11:42:39 PM
O_o

For the record Steveo, none of the issues here that everyone seems to have with you are "extreme leftist" points. It seems really that you want to be able to hide under the umbrella of being liberal "hey look at me I'm not racist" when in reality your viewpoints highlight that you consider us all 'other' or different from you. I would challenge you labeling yourself as liberal, in the same way that the conservatives ate Tomi Lerhen for lunch when she espoused pro-choice views. There are a view essential  viewpoints to the Democratic Party and you aren't really passing the entrance exam. Everything you've said here is antithetical to being liberal. You might not see racism, your wife might not see it, but you are assuming that your children of color never will, and that's a pretty bold assumption. Why not fight to make the world a better place for their sake.

If 50 people are telling you the sky is grey, you ought to consider that the sky might actually be that color, even if you can't see it yourself.

I think we should just drop the labels. It'd make things a whole bunch easier. If 1000 people told me the sun was black it wouldn't make it true. Another point I'd make is that I've never said racism and sexism and all sorts of hateful crap exists. I accept it exists. One other problem I've noticed is you guys trying to put words into my mouth.

I'd state another couple of points:-

1. Western society today is pretty darn good compared to the past. If you don't believe this go and read the book Sapiens. You could also compare western society to for instance a society that the Taliban wants to implement.
2. Western society is not a repressive patriarchy. People get to vote, get married if they want too, watch what they want on TV, read what they want and basically live their lives on their own terms. If this is repression well it's better than in lots of other parts of the world.
3. Western society has changed a lot and further changes will occur in the future.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 11:46:06 PM
To me, the only true long term solution is to treat everyone the same regardless of race or sex.  When there is real racism or sexism we all must be willing to speak up.  But, I think that treating someone better just because of their race or sex is also racist and will breed resentment making things worse in the long run.

The problem that extreme leftists have is that want to rule by quota. All of the statistics utilised above are based on the assumption that a fair and equitable society would have no differences.

There will of course be issues and changing society is hard. I agree that we can all stand up and act without being hate filled bigots. I am okay with some form of positive discrimination but I think it can make things worse as well. It's a very very tough situation and I'm not sure it even works.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 11:48:36 PM
I see your point and I'm not at all opposed to programs to give minorities additional training, scholarships for minorities, or other things like that.  But, if we take it to far it will be counter productive in the long run.

We have so far to go before we even get to ‘far enough’ that we really don’t have to worry about ‘too far’ anytime soon. 

Re: steveo, he seems to think that if there are no explicitly racist laws, that systemic racism doesn’t exist.  And, as I predicted, when presented with evidence that racism does exit he simply ignores it and digs his heels in.  Typical of his kind.  He’s the type of person that thinks “hey, I’M not racist, so therefore no one else is either.”  Or “Since I don’t see people in my immediate vicinity engage explicitly racist behavior, racism doesn’t exist.”  He should take a trip to Texas or Georgia or Mississippi and he’d quickly learn how very wrong he is.

This is really weird and it's exactly what I am talking about. The proof that was provided is really poor proof and I can simply state men die younger than women on average hence insert your buzzword here.

I have never said racism and sexism doesn't exist. I accept that it does. There are some weird people out there.

Maybe you should try and not put words into my mouth and get so worked up when we should be discussing an issue rationally and sanely. Let me talk for me and you can talk for you.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 03, 2019, 11:54:24 PM
I gave you facts.  You made up a story about meat.

Which may actually be true. Read the post above regarding hispanics. It has facts in it as well.

Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

I read these links. To me they aren't helping your case one little bit. It just seems like you are grasping for anything and it's not working.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

Maybe but I don't think so. Your links are pretty poor statements of proof to back up your opinions. Would anyone really look at this and state well racism is institutionalised in medical care and we live in a repressive patriarchy. Honestly I think you need to set the bar a little higher than that.

You somehow have tricked yourself into thinking you have some kind of superior, objective point of view, yet you reply to objective facts with stories to support your biases.

Really. I think that you should be looking at yourself here. I see these terrible studies that even disprove your argument but you sound so confident. I'll give you a hint - men die on average younger than women. That is part of your study and it doesn't support the viewpoint that we live in a repressive patriarchy. I honestly don't think that you can do better because I think you've set yourself up for failure. Your viewpoint is too simplistic and black and white and western society (and other societies) are complex. You may have a point to a degree and I'm more than willing to get on board with a less extreme viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
https://www.statista.com/statistics/274513/life-expectancy-in-north-america/

You can judge the facts that I've provided but I think they are a lot better than your facts because they are much more clearly defined on specific broader issues. Trying to extrapolate out your broad theories based on less pain medicine being given out to me just doesn't cut it. I'll also state that I'm not stating that men are discriminated against but of course some men will be discriminated against.

My point is that the world is complex and there are lots of reasons why certain situations have evolved today.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mjr on March 04, 2019, 12:36:32 AM
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

The modern western world is a great place and getting better.  I don't know why the perpetually outraged are perpetually outraged.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 04, 2019, 01:55:05 AM
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

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

10/10, excellent trolling.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 04, 2019, 06:43:11 AM
Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

I read these links. To me they aren't helping your case one little bit. It just seems like you are grasping for anything and it's not working.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

Maybe but I don't think so. Your links are pretty poor statements of proof to back up your opinions. Would anyone really look at this and state well racism is institutionalised in medical care and we live in a repressive patriarchy. Honestly I think you need to set the bar a little higher than that.

I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

That's the question.  Nothing else matters here except that you admit that black people face an institutional barrier in this particular situation.  If you are unable to do that, despite clear evidence that it is the case, there is no point discussing anything related to this matter with you.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on March 04, 2019, 07:45:58 AM
liberals are anti religious. Most people I know are liberal. Some go to church, some go to a synagogue. I had my kids go to a preschool at a Methodist church where they did talk about God. Overall I find liberal people pretty tolerant (heck, that's what makes them liberals!).

There are two exceptions. Many liberal people, including myself, are intolerant of evangelicalism. This is the kind of religion that yes tries to shove their version of Christianity down everyone's throat including remaking the government in their image. It's what got us in NC the bathroom law (transgenders cannot use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, but only the sex that is on their birth certificate), along with a bunch of other depressing stuff I don't want to get into. It's why people like Roy Moore get elected again, and again, even though he got disbarred for not following state and Federal laws, and advising others not to do so, under the guise of "religious freedom". I don't see being intolerance of evangelicals, as being anti-religious. They are two different things. If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

2nd, I admit there is a small subset of people, who are almost evangelical atheists. That not only do they have to tell you they are atheists, but that anyone who believes in God or goes to Church is stupid, idiot, irrational, what have you. Those people are not respectful. Most people I know who are like this do NOT identify with being Liberals, but identify as being libertarians (not always, assholes come in all forms and they could be from almost any part of the political spectrum, including Republican. They are almost always white males...) I would NOT lump libertarians in with Liberals. two different things.  Next time you see someone virilently atheistic, before you assume they are a "liberal" ask them what their political stance is.

I understand where you are coming from.  Some Christians don't do a good job of showing love and being respectful to others.  It's hard to have other people's beliefs shoved down your throat.  But, there is a balance.  Penn Jillette (from Penn & Teller) who is an atheist, had this to say about a Christian who witnessed to him.  I'm quoting him because he says it much better than I could. 

Jillette, moved by the man’s gesture, recalled: “He was kind, and nice, and sane, and looked me in the eyes, and talked to me, and then gave me this Bible.”
“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.
“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Jillette then offered this example to illustrate his point: “If I believed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe it, that that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point that I tackle you, and this is more important than that.”
“This guy was a really good guy. He was polite, honest, and sane, and he cared enough about me to proselytize and give me a Bible.”

As a Christian, I want you to know about Jesus because I don't want you to go to hell.  It's not about judging you or forcing you to live a certain way.  Sin is wrong and the Bible is very clear that certain behaviors are sin.  But, I believe we are ALL sinners so I don't have room to look down on anyone else.  If I truly love you, I should be looking for opportunities to witness, but I should do it in a manner like Penn described.

I just wanted to point out that this post entirely missed the point. There is an obvious difference between proselytizing and "legislating your religion." No one was complaining about proselytizing. "Other people's beliefs shoved down your throat" was referring to the Evangelicals' habit of legislating "Christian Sharia Law" (to use a term that might resonate with Evangelicals) to force everyone else to act like they want them to.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: OurTown on March 04, 2019, 08:03:20 AM
Leaving aside the racist propaganda component of modern conservatism for a moment, I would like to observe that most of us in the FIRE movement are actually quite "conservative" in how we live our own lives in the sense that we take responsibility for our own outcomes and we make proactive choices to better our lot in life.  E.G., live below your means, choose things that make you happy rather than following the herd, invest instead of spend, etc.

Where we run into trouble, I think, is insisting that everyone else also adpot a "conservative" mindset, or at least that everyone else be judged by a "conservative" standard.  To put it in simplistic terms, "I worked hard, got a job, made my income, and saved my pennies, and if you squandered your life it's your own damn fault so no food-stamps for you!" 

Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 04, 2019, 08:05:41 AM
I'd state another couple of points:-

1. Western society today is pretty darn good compared to the past. If you don't believe this go and read the book Sapiens. You could also compare western society to for instance a society that the Taliban wants to implement.
2. Western society is not a repressive patriarchy. People get to vote, get married if they want too, watch what they want on TV, read what they want and basically live their lives on their own terms. If this is repression well it's better than in lots of other parts of the world.
3. Western society has changed a lot and further changes will occur in the future.

1. I agree. And I think everyone involved in this conversation would agree with at least the first sentence.
2. I disagree, but I don't think we're actually that far apart. (I'll explain in a second.)
3. I also agree, and again I think everyone here would.

Back to point 2. You said:
You are right but it's not a patriarchal decision. It's you and me and everyone else voting with their actions. For some reason LeBron James sells more tickets/media attention etc than do women working as computer scientists.
...
I get it. The difference in our thinking is that you blame the patriarchy whereas I state well that is what society currently chooses. It's people making their own little decisions over time and it's really tough to turn things around quickly.

To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

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

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

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

You and I agree sexism and racism exist. And you and I agree that the individual choices people make contribute to those problems existing. Patriarchy is just a word used to describe exactly what we agree the problem is. So what exactly do we disagree on?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 08:13:30 AM
Here's another fact: when black children and white children come into the ER, regardless of their reporting of pain levels, the black children are less likely to be given pain medication, and are less likely to be given strong pain medication?

I read these links. To me they aren't helping your case one little bit. It just seems like you are grasping for anything and it's not working.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.

Might this obvious fact of racism indicate to you that doctors generally treat black people poorly?  Generally ignore their pain? Wouldn't that be a more likely cause of their shortened life expectancy than "they eat more meat"?

Maybe but I don't think so. Your links are pretty poor statements of proof to back up your opinions. Would anyone really look at this and state well racism is institutionalised in medical care and we live in a repressive patriarchy. Honestly I think you need to set the bar a little higher than that.

I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

That's the question.  Nothing else matters here except that you admit that black people face an institutional barrier in this particular situation.  If you are unable to do that, despite clear evidence that it is the case, there is no point discussing anything related to this matter with you.

Toque.

Part of the problem is in recognizing that institutional racism refers to ingrained processes that are inherently racist; it has nothing to do with be explicitly racist. This is a good case in point. The end result is racist even though their is no policy stating not to give the same treatment to certain minorities.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2019, 08:19:59 AM
We also have discussed the racist voter id laws in this thread pretty thoroughly.  They fall into a similar category - not explicitly written to disadvantage people of colour, but designed entirely to disadvantage people of colour.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on March 04, 2019, 08:39:49 AM
Leaving aside the racist propaganda component of modern conservatism for a moment, I would like to observe that most of us in the FIRE movement are actually quite "conservative" in how we live our own lives in the sense that we take responsibility for our own outcomes and we make proactive choices to better our lot in life.  E.G., live below your means, choose things that make you happy rather than following the herd, invest instead of spend, etc.

Where we run into trouble, I think, is insisting that everyone else also adpot a "conservative" mindset, or at least that everyone else be judged by a "conservative" standard.  To put it in simplistic terms, "I worked hard, got a job, made my income, and saved my pennies, and if you squandered your life it's your own damn fault so no food-stamps for you!" 

Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I disagree that exercising self-control and being good with money are "conservative" traits. Conservatives / liberals disagree on what standard to demand of other people and/or how best to help those who need it. Everyone is in favor of such generic concepts as making yourself personally disciplined and fiscally responsible.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 08:50:47 AM
More men than women may want the big job. More men may do a better job than women. People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate. Maybe better female candidates will come along over time. The point is trying to simplify complex issues into a simple statement about the patriarchy and racism etc is not in my opinion good enough.

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

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

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

Quote
Maybe better female candidates will come along over time.

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

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

Yes. And a society that views male candidates as preferable on such a consistent, historical basis might just be described as patriarchal.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 08:57:48 AM
I am more than willing to concede that the natural equilibrium we reach in a perfectly egalitarian society may not be 50/50. Men and women are different. Some women give birth to babies whereas men do not. This probably makes career advancement a little more difficult. Personally I think we should try to accommodate this better, but either way, maybe that's enough to explain why we won't get to 50/50 in many careers.

But to look at 95/5 (Fortune 500 CEOs) or 77/23 and deny that there is anything systemic or institutionalized going on here seems silly to me.

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2019, 09:02:28 AM
Quote
Maybe better female candidates will come along over time.

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

To be fair, it has only been 16 men in a row elected since women were given the right to vote.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Tyson on March 04, 2019, 09:03:22 AM
Leaving aside the racist propaganda component of modern conservatism for a moment, I would like to observe that most of us in the FIRE movement are actually quite "conservative" in how we live our own lives in the sense that we take responsibility for our own outcomes and we make proactive choices to better our lot in life.  E.G., live below your means, choose things that make you happy rather than following the herd, invest instead of spend, etc.

Where we run into trouble, I think, is insisting that everyone else also adopt a "conservative" mindset, or at least that everyone else be judged by a "conservative" standard.  To put it in simplistic terms, "I worked hard, got a job, made my income, and saved my pennies, and if you squandered your life it's your own damn fault so no food-stamps for you!" 

Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I agree with you.  20 years ago, I had the same mindset - ie, "I am the one that worked hard, got a good education and got a good job, so screw you if you didn't make it like I did."

What I didn't realize at the time, but I do now, is that both of these statements are true:

1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America
2. It's EVEN HARDER for a minority to make it than it is a white person

Now I understand that both are true because the playing field is tilted against minorities (and women).  And if we're truly concerned with justice or fairness, we should address the fact that the playing field i tilted.   
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 09:12:55 AM
Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I love this. I liked tyort's contribution as well.

The way I've always thought of it, is that I'm conservative on an individual to individual basis, but I'm liberal when it comes to the macro level issues.

If a disadvantaged person wants to better their life, I'd tell them to work harder, work smarter, live leaner, negotiate, read books and get smarter. All that shit. Voting liberal won't help their lives on an individual basis.

But on the macro level, white men empirically wield outsized power. This is not because they're more talented than women/minorities. It's not because they work harder. There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed. So the personal conservatism that I practice in my own life does zero good on the national stage.

That's why I vote liberal. We need people who understand these issues and are willing to address them. Many conservatives at best, don't understand or won't acknowledge the issues, and at worst, actively work to exacerbate the issues.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 09:18:28 AM
I disagree that exercising self-control and being good with money are "conservative" traits. Conservatives / liberals disagree on what standard to demand of other people and/or how best to help those who need it. Everyone is in favor of such generic concepts as making yourself personally disciplined and fiscally responsible.

This is a good point too. It's annoying that conservatism has managed to co-opt ideas like personal responsibility, support of the troops, etc.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 04, 2019, 09:35:51 AM
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America

I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 10:09:39 AM
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America

I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?

Or could it be some combination of the two, if it was actually easy for you?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sugaree on March 04, 2019, 10:10:03 AM
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America

I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?


I freely admit that I had all the opportunity in the world.  I grew up in a house where I never had to worry about the power being shut off or not having enough food to eat.  I went to a public school that wasn't failing and had teachers who cared whether we could read or not.  If I worked in HS/college it was because I wanted to have extra money to spend and not because I needed to help with the bills.  I went to college directly out of HS courtesy of my parents/grandparents.  I went to college the second time courtesy of a co-op job that I'm pretty sure my dad pulled some strings on.  I live in a house that my mom inherited and that I'll inherit from her.  I've made some stupid choices and squandered most of my twenties, but it's a minor setback and not the end of the world.  Just because I'm a woman and I've had all these advantages, it doesn't mean that I don't understand that by and large, other women didn't have the same lot in life.  And there's a decent chance that a man given the same advantages is better off than I am. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 04, 2019, 10:38:11 AM
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

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

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


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

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

Just FYI, he may not be arguing in good faith.  I tried to point this out to him multiple times in another thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/why-do-so-few-men-'followfanboysupport'-women-when-the-reverse-is-not-true/msg2256119/#msg2256119)...
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 04, 2019, 10:40:10 AM
1. It's VERY HARD to make it in America
I've pulled out this line to quote because my experience has been that it was relatively easy for me to make it in America. Why was that? Is it because I'm the smartest, hardest-working, innovative, self-starting, independent, bootstrapper of them all? Or is it because I had all sorts of advantages and lucky breaks, each of which might have been small, but which added up to a real head start in life?

Or could it be some combination of the two, if it was actually easy for you?

Sure, it's a combination. But the stuff I had no control over had at least as big effect as anything I did.

One way I've talked about this before is Anyone vs Everyone.

Individually, just about Anyone can rise out of poverty and make a good life for themselves in America. Anybody can, but not Everybody can. Not Everybody, because it's always going to depend on circumstances and luck--it's a stochastic process. And not Everybody because all of those Anybodies are competing for the same opportunities*.

Like mathlete said a few posts ago, if someone asks me what to do to get ahead, I'd tell them to "work harder, work smarter, live leaner, negotiate, read books and get smarter". That's good advice for anybody-- black/white/woman/man. But just because doing those things can improve anyone's lot in life doesn't mean there aren't systematic issues that make life harder for some.

*I'm glossing over some complexity here. It's not a zero sum game, but there is clear a degree of competition.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 04, 2019, 10:55:25 AM
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

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

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


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

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

Just FYI, he may not be arguing in good faith.  I tried to point this out to him multiple times in another thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/why-do-so-few-men-'followfanboysupport'-women-when-the-reverse-is-not-true/msg2256119/#msg2256119)...

Thanks for the link; it is indeed pretty much the same conversation. But for me this is more about how I approach these situations. I'm trying hard to assume the best of people, to really understand them, and to be kind. Regardless of who Steveo wants to be, that's who I want to be.

So Steveo, what of it? Are you here for serious conversation or just goofing off?

Edit: re-reading that last line, I thought it came across as too snarky, which isn't how I intended it. I'd just like to hear from you what you goal with this thread is?
[Also edited because my spelling sucks.]
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 11:20:15 AM
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

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

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

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

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

So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2019, 11:39:12 AM
(I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

Compared to some places in the world, the racism and sexism that we deal with on a daily basis here isn't so bad.  This is true, and something that I agree with!

What level of racism and sexism is acceptable to you?  While 'little' is certainly better than 'lots', the real goal is and should always be 'NONE'.
 Taking pride in only having a little racism is like only getting a little drunk before going for a drive.  It's kinda fucked up.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 04, 2019, 11:43:36 AM
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

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

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

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

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

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

Most of those questions seem to be answered by the abstract and/or do not seem relevant to the study...

Quote
Abstract
IMPORTANCE:
Racial disparities in use of analgesia in emergency departments have been previously documented. Further work to understand the causes of these disparities must be undertaken, which can then help inform the development of interventions to reduce and eradicate racial disparities in health care provision.

OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate racial differences in analgesia administration, and particularly opioid administration, among children diagnosed as having appendicitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Repeated cross-sectional study of patients aged 21 years or younger evaluated in the emergency department who had an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis of appendicitis, using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2003 to 2010. We calculated the frequency of both opioid and nonopioid analgesia administration using complex survey weighting. We then performed multivariable logistic regression to examine racial differences in overall administration of analgesia, and specifically opioid analgesia, after adjusting for important demographic and visit covariates, including ethnicity and pain score.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
Receipt of analgesia administration (any and opioid) by race.

RESULTS:
An estimated 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78-1.10) million children were diagnosed as having appendicitis. Of those, 56.8% (95% CI, 49.8%-63.9%) received analgesia of any type; 41.3% (95% CI, 33.7%-48.9%) received opioid analgesia (20.7% [95% CI, 5.3%-36.0%] of black patients vs 43.1% [95% CI, 34.6%-51.4%] of white patients). When stratified by pain score and adjusted for ethnicity, black patients with moderate pain were less likely to receive any analgesia than white patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.1 [95% CI, 0.02-0.8]). Among those with severe pain, black patients were less likely to receive opioids than white patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.2 [95% CI, 0.06-0.9]). In a multivariable model, there were no significant differences in the overall rate of analgesia administration by race. However, black patients received opioid analgesia significantly less frequently than white patients (12.2% [95% CI, 0.1%-35.2%] vs 33.9% [95% CI, 0.6%-74.9%], respectively; adjusted odds ratio = 0.2 [95% CI, 0.06-0.8]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and racial disparities with respect to analgesia administration exist. Black children are less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and less likely to receive opioids for severe pain, suggesting a different threshold for treatment.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 11:50:43 AM
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

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

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

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

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

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

Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 04, 2019, 11:52:20 AM
If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

I can't quite believe I have to point this out: the post by mjr that I was responding to was siding with the person saying "maybe Hispanics eat beans" because the other side hadn't done enough multivariate analysis for their liking.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 12:20:27 PM
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

People looking at studies, facts, and statistics to support their arguments is what's wrong with politics today? Other underlying differences are implicit considered in any well-designed study, as shenlong's post points out. A few posts ago, I explicitly mentioned childbearing as a factor that could cause women to lag behind in career achievement.

It's nuts to say that this thread is emblematic of what's wrong with politics. This thread is better than a vast majority of political discussions you see elsewhere in life. The only way I could see someone thinking this thread is a "bad" representation of political discourse, is if you're main goal in discourse is pacification. i.e., Sides A and B both respecting each other's arguments regardless of merit.

I consider this very bad discourse. I don't like lending credibility to conclusions not found in evidence.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 12:27:56 PM
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

People looking at studies, facts, and statistics to support their arguments is what's wrong with politics today? Other underlying differences are implicit considered in any well-designed study, as shenlong's post points out. A few posts ago, I explicitly mentioned childbearing as a factor that could cause women to lag behind in career achievement.

It's nuts to say that this thread is emblematic of what's wrong with politics. This thread is better than a vast majority of political discussions you see elsewhere in life. The only way I could see someone thinking this thread is a "bad" representation of political discourse, is if you're main goal in discourse is pacification. i.e., Sides A and B both respecting each other's arguments regardless of merit.

I consider this very bad discourse. I don't like lending credibility to conclusions not found in evidence.

It isn't that they're using facts to support their position, it's that a lot of people are using tangential facts to assert something that can't be proven, and when steveo points this out many of them (though not all) shout him down. That's the problem, and I see it on both sides.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 12:29:07 PM
If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

I can't quite believe I have to point this out: the post by mjr that I was responding to was siding with the person saying "maybe Hispanics eat beans" because the other side hadn't done enough multivariate analysis for their liking.

Sorry, I thought it was sarcasm. Fail on my part.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 12:31:01 PM
If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

I can't quite believe I have to point this out: the post by mjr that I was responding to was siding with the person saying "maybe Hispanics eat beans" because the other side hadn't done enough multivariate analysis for their liking.

ROLF!!

To steveo's point, I'm perfectly fine acknowledging that confounding variables exist. But people who research this stuff try to find confounding variables too. And if you want to criticize the conclusion that institutionalized racism and sexism are absolutely 100% a thing, maybe suggestion some confounding variables that you think explain the differences. Bonus points for pointing to studies that support your conclusion.

For example, lots of liberal politicians like to cite large pay-gap figures. 77 cents on the dollar is a common one. But when you look at the BLS research, after controlling for hours worked and occupation, that gap shrinks dramatically. That doesn't mean women don't face discrimination and barriers in the workforce that aren't faced by men, but it does mean that there probably isn't a large sexist conspiracy to pay women less for the same exact work.

I consider this a valid criticism of liberal rhetoric. But we haven't gotten much like that in this thread sadly.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 04, 2019, 12:38:22 PM
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

I find this disingenuous at best.

The alternative to statistics is anecdotes.  Anecdotes aren't good enough for you.  I can give you story after story after story of black people, women, other minorities being treated badly and you will ignore it.

"That's just that woman."  "Well, what did that black guy do that the cops beat him up?"

You'll gloss over and find excuses to ignore each case.  So we look at the en masse result of treatment, and what do we see?
Black people just somehow end up living where education systems are the worst.
Women just magically end up not getting very far in politics.

Believe it or not, scientists do look at the underlying trends that lead to black people having shorter life expectancies.  Do you honestly think the entire scientific apparatus just stops at "Look!  Racism!" and then shrugs and walks away?  What kind of stupid would that be?  The issues underlying the situation are numerous and well researched.

But you can't seriously come here without noting that the United States was founded with slavery.  When it abolished that, they fought through Jim Crow and then through a Civil Rights Act that was needed just so black people could eat at the same restaurants and get service at gas stations as white people.  That's nuts.  It is not reasonable to pretend your nation has been cured of all of its racist ills - both conscious and unconscious - in such a short time.  Especially not when all of the statistical markers of slavery and poor treatment (from health care, through employment and education) are still waving the same red flags that have stood for over a century.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 04, 2019, 12:44:19 PM
For example, lots of liberal politicians like to cite large pay-gap figures. 77 cents on the dollar is a common one. But when you look at the BLS research, after controlling for hours worked and occupation, that gap shrinks dramatically. That doesn't mean women don't face discrimination and barriers in the workforce that aren't faced by men, but it does mean that there probably isn't a large sexist conspiracy to pay women less for the same exact work.

I consider this a valid criticism of liberal rhetoric. But we haven't gotten much like that in this thread sadly.

It's not a valid criticism of any liberal position I know, because every liberal I know is perfectly well aware that women are in lower paying careers, take more time off work when children are born, and work fewer hours in general.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless you're taking a really simplified view of the pay gap problem.

We usually talk about the system which steers women into lower paying careers, assigns lower value to work deemed to be women's work, punishes women for having children where men are rewarded, assigns emotions to women that make them unsuitable for certain positions, and applies social pressure to get women to conform to traditional roles.

I mean, sure, if you ignore all of those factors, you can just say, "Hey, women are choosing to make less money", but that's a pretty silly position to take.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 12:44:50 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 12:45:32 PM
It isn't that they're using facts to support their position, it's that a lot of people are using tangential facts to assert something that can't be proven, and when steveo points this out many of them (though not all) shout him down. That's the problem, and I see it on both sides.

Almost nothing can be proven. This is why we rely on inductive reasoning. See the leaves moving outside, and conclude that the wind is blowing. Everyone does this. If we didn't, we'd be paralyzed by indecision driven by lack of information. We'd perish of thirst while waiting for complete multivariate studies on the safety of drinking water.

If steveo wants to deny that lack of female representation in government or in executive leadership is driven not by systemic and institutionalized biases against women, then it'd be best for him to posit what he thinks they are being driven by.

That's the way good discussion works.

Right now, the discussion looks more like this,

1.) empirical evidence that women aren't achieving at similar levels as men. (or sub minorities and whites if you want)
2.) Side A posits that there are institutionalized forces working against women/minorities and provides support for this argument.
3.) Side B says that since Side A's data does not constitute a full and complete multivariate study, the conclusion is wrong, and thus we revert to the null hypothesis that racism and sexism aren't that big of a deal.

That is not a fair or honest discussion.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 12:53:14 PM
It's not a valid criticism of any liberal position I know, because every liberal I know is perfectly well aware that women are in lower paying careers, take more time off work when children are born, and work fewer hours in general.

Here's an example of politifact making this exact criticism on an Obama re-election ad:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/ (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/21/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-women-are-paid-77-cents-dolla/)



I'm not sure where you're going with this, unless you're taking a really simplified view of the pay gap problem.

We usually talk about the system which steers women into lower paying careers, assigns lower value to work deemed to be women's work, punishes women for having children where men are rewarded, assigns emotions to women that make them unsuitable for certain positions, and applies social pressure to get women to conform to traditional roles.

I mean, sure, if you ignore all of those factors, you can just say, "Hey, women are choosing to make less money", but that's a pretty silly position to take.

Toque.

If you've read any of my posts, you'd know that this isn't the position I'm taking at all. If you read the post you quoted, you'd see that the reason I brought this up is to show posters like steveo that proper way to argue against my positions.

i.e., don't say,

"Your conclusion is false because your support may not consider every relevant factor.", but instead, say,

"Your conclusion is false because your support doesn't consider mitigating factors A, B, and C. When XYZ study controls for these factors, the results look like 123."

The latter is specific and direct. And the conversation can continue from there. The former is a criticism that can be levied at any and every position and is used to prematurely end discussion.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on March 04, 2019, 12:56:51 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 12:59:05 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Actually, there are a couple of pages of on the subject of whether or not institutional racism exists.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2019, 01:05:45 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

Yes, they are.  It's a great example of both the existence of patriarchy and why it remains a problem.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 01:14:49 PM
So do you guys want to know what I think is wrong with politics today? I give exhibit A, this entire thread. Basically people looking at differences in outcome along statistical lines and not considering that maybe there are underlying differences that aren't exactly being considered other than 'racism' or 'patriarchy'. (I agree there is some racism and sexism in the world, but it comes from every side and as far as I can tell it isn't that bad here relative to other parts of the world.)

I find this disingenuous at best.

The alternative to statistics is anecdotes.  Anecdotes aren't good enough for you.  I can give you story after story after story of black people, women, other minorities being treated badly and you will ignore it.

"That's just that woman."  "Well, what did that black guy do that the cops beat him up?"

You'll gloss over and find excuses to ignore each case.  So we look at the en masse result of treatment, and what do we see?
Black people just somehow end up living where education systems are the worst.
Women just magically end up not getting very far in politics.

Believe it or not, scientists do look at the underlying trends that lead to black people having shorter life expectancies.  Do you honestly think the entire scientific apparatus just stops at "Look!  Racism!" and then shrugs and walks away?  What kind of stupid would that be?  The issues underlying the situation are numerous and well researched.

But you can't seriously come here without noting that the United States was founded with slavery.  When it abolished that, they fought through Jim Crow and then through a Civil Rights Act that was needed just so black people could eat at the same restaurants and get service at gas stations as white people.  That's nuts.  It is not reasonable to pretend your nation has been cured of all of its racist ills - both conscious and unconscious - in such a short time.  Especially not when all of the statistical markers of slavery and poor treatment (from health care, through employment and education) are still waving the same red flags that have stood for over a century.

Toque.

Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective: African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and many celebrate the thug life culture; they are therefore rationally more apprehensive when confronting minorities. Additionally, police brutality cases are often blown out of proportion (Michael Brown being the poster-child), and the attitude among many liberals is to lean toward the word of criminals rather than erring on the side of our law enforcement officers.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 01:16:35 PM
Regarding this forum having a left-wing bias, I want to state again that education now has a "left-wing bias".

Most of this forum is college educated. Most Republicans now hold the view that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the country.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/)

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 01:17:32 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

No crazy pills needed. Traditional gender roles ≠ systemic gender discrimination.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 01:24:40 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Actually, there are a couple of pages of on the subject of whether or not institutional racism exists.

I said racism and sexism exist, but I am with steveo: there is very little that remains of institutional racism (at least as far as the law is concerned). There are a few points that I feel the government should work to improve (the drug war and associated mass incarceration, gerrymandering and other techniques that limit a person's democratic rights), but overall I feel "institutional racism and sexism" is hardly a thing these days. Where it is a problem (or rather, where the byproduct of the laws has made it into a problem), we need to come up with solutions.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 01:29:25 PM
Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective: African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and many celebrate the thug life culture; they are therefore rationally more apprehensive when confronting minorities. Additionally, police brutality cases are often blown out of proportion (Michael Brown being the poster-child), and the attitude among many liberals is to lean toward the word of criminals rather than erring on the side of our law enforcement officers.

Why do you think black people commit more crime? I would wager that there is dramatically more empirical support that blacks commit more crime due to systemic racism and oppression, than because their culture glorifies criminal activity. White people love Jay Z too. But really, I would like to know what you think.

Michael Brown seems like he was a dick, but the DoJ review of the Ferguson Police Department that was triggered by the incident revealed that the city of Ferguson was largely dependent upon their mostly white policy force harassing and fining their mostly black citizenry.1 In light of the DoJ's report, I don't think anything was blown out of proportion at all. The cops shoot people all the time. People don't riot and protest unless something has been bubbling below the surface for a long time.

1https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 04, 2019, 01:40:12 PM
Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.
So this conversation is really about just about how much racism and sexism is acceptable in our society? That's genuinely a different conversation then the one I thought I'd been having.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective...
Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: robartsd on March 04, 2019, 01:47:57 PM
There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the systemic issues are obvious; at least not obvious enough to point out specific causes. Sure, you don't have to look all that carefully to see that there probably are systemic issues (there is plenty of difference in outcomes); but it is much harder to see exactly what those systemic issues are (what specifically causes the outcomes to be different). We've corrected (most) explicit discrimination (those were obvious, systemic issues); but that's evidently not enough to correct everything. Until a decade or so ago, one might argue that changes to educational opportunity simply hadn't had time to reach the top (it usually takes decades after college to become a CEO or hold a high political office); but now the average person in these types of positions was born after the explicit discrimination corrections were made.

What are the systemic issues? I think most of us would agree that they are cultural "norms" (many subtle, some far less subtle). I also think that most of us would agree that these have been improving over time. I think some conservatives would say that they've been fully corrected but haven't had time to reach the top. I think many conservatives who agree that they haven't been fully corrected believe that the momentum behind the correction is sufficient to ensure that it will be fully corrected soon (thus no further explicit action to correct is needed). Most liberals believe a full correction has not been made and feel it is important to keep pushing for policy that explicitly makes corrections. Perhaps, the most extreme liberals push for enough policy that many conservatives are fearful of over-correcting (discriminating against whites and/or men).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 04, 2019, 01:59:46 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

Yes. 

Tradition is a system, and the system is discriminating, and therefore we have systemic discrimination.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 04, 2019, 02:14:51 PM
There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the systemic issues are obvious; at least not obvious enough to point out specific causes. Sure, you don't have to look all that carefully to see that there probably are systemic issues (there is plenty of difference in outcomes); but it is much harder to see exactly what those systemic issues are (what specifically causes the outcomes to be different). We've corrected (most) explicit discrimination (those were obvious, systemic issues); but that's evidently not enough to correct everything. Until a decade or so ago, one might argue that changes to educational opportunity simply hadn't had time to reach the top (it usually takes decades after college to become a CEO or hold a high political office); but now the average person in these types of positions was born after the explicit discrimination corrections were made.

What are the systemic issues? I think most of us would agree that they are cultural "norms" (many subtle, some far less subtle). I also think that most of us would agree that these have been improving over time. I think some conservatives would say that they've been fully corrected but haven't had time to reach the top. I think many conservatives who agree that they haven't been fully corrected believe that the momentum behind the correction is sufficient to ensure that it will be fully corrected soon (thus no further explicit action to correct is needed). Most liberals believe a full correction has not been made and feel it is important to keep pushing for policy that explicitly makes corrections. Perhaps, the most extreme liberals push for enough policy that many conservatives are fearful of over-correcting (discriminating against whites and/or men).

I do agree there is a difference in perception, as well as attitudes. I do agree that most "liberals" feel that a full correction has not been made and it is important to keep pushing. Again while many of these things are still "illegal" (racial profiling, shooting of unarmed black males, sexual discrimination in the workplace) they STILL KEEP HAPPENING. Racial and other kinds of gerrymandering STILL KEEP HAPPENING. As a women, things that directly impact me, such sex education for students, as access to reproductive care, the ability to say report and have legal consequences if I'm raped as a college student, conservatives are actively rolling back existing protections. So yes, there is no sense of complacency with the current administration and current crop of conservatives. You only have to see what elected conservatives say about women, about rape, about minorities (for example what Trump said about the Central Park 5) (i.e the people who administer the law, interpret the law, and who make the laws) to understand, yes there is still a problem.

And I'm not a big liberal. I'm definitely not a social activist. For me to comment on this line of the thread, has gotten to be pretty bad, to get me worked up about it! And for the people on the other side, who are watching Fox news, turn off the damn tv! you are getting your buttons pressed by people desperate to hold onto power, and they are preying on your fears, to keep them elected.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 02:17:33 PM
Nobody is arguing that there isn't some racism or sexism in the United States. I grew up in the South; I even one time stopped to see what was for sale in the Confederate Superstore (bonus points for whoever can name that locale) and to visit the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. I get it, there's racism and sexism in the world. But I don't feel either are as prevalent as so many here seem to think.

Take police brutality. I agree it is abhorrent, and police officers should be tried and convicted for murder if they clearly overstepped their bounds. I also agree that police brutality is likely a much bigger problem for the African-American community than others. But at the same time, look at it from the police officer's perspective: African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and many celebrate the thug life culture; they are therefore rationally more apprehensive when confronting minorities. Additionally, police brutality cases are often blown out of proportion (Michael Brown being the poster-child), and the attitude among many liberals is to lean toward the word of criminals rather than erring on the side of our law enforcement officers.

Why do you think black people commit more crime? I would wager that there is dramatically more empirical support that blacks commit more crime due to systemic racism and oppression, than because their culture glorifies criminal activity. White people love Jay Z too. But really, I would like to know what you think.

Michael Brown seems like he was a dick, but the DoJ review of the Ferguson Police Department that was triggered by the incident revealed that the city of Ferguson was largely dependent upon their mostly white policy force harassing and fining their mostly black citizenry.1 In light of the DoJ's report, I don't think anything was blown out of proportion at all. The cops shoot people all the time. People don't riot and protest unless something has been bubbling below the surface for a long time.

1https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf)

To answer your first paragraph, I have no idea, but nonetheless it is a fact. If climate change creates Category 6 or 7 hurricanes, we don't say "it isn't the hurricanes' fault, it was humans who created their conditions, so we shouldn't build houses to withstand the new winds and surges".

As to your second paragraph, yes, I am familiar with the Ferguson report and agree there were major systemic issues. I think the first solution, in this case, would be a better integrated police department.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 02:23:49 PM
Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

Agreed. But officers are murdered too, many of them with the best of intentions. How many lines of work have that distinction?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on March 04, 2019, 02:37:23 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

No crazy pills needed. Traditional gender roles ≠ systemic gender discrimination.

Two other posters, as well as myself disagree. I don't think a discussion about what to do about or whether systemic discrimination exists will be very fruitful if posters have such widely differing definitions of what it even is.

Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

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

I was curious so I looked it up. Looks like police patrol officers clock in around #14, with about 15 deaths per 100K workers per year.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: slow hand slow plan on March 04, 2019, 02:39:31 PM
Taxi drivers are murdered at twice the rate of police officers . Police barely come in above food service managers for murders in careers..
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Tyson on March 04, 2019, 02:41:20 PM
There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed.
I don't think the systemic issues are obvious; at least not obvious enough to point out specific causes. Sure, you don't have to look all that carefully to see that there probably are systemic issues (there is plenty of difference in outcomes); but it is much harder to see exactly what those systemic issues are (what specifically causes the outcomes to be different). We've corrected (most) explicit discrimination (those were obvious, systemic issues); but that's evidently not enough to correct everything. Until a decade or so ago, one might argue that changes to educational opportunity simply hadn't had time to reach the top (it usually takes decades after college to become a CEO or hold a high political office); but now the average person in these types of positions was born after the explicit discrimination corrections were made.

What are the systemic issues? I think most of us would agree that they are cultural "norms" (many subtle, some far less subtle). I also think that most of us would agree that these have been improving over time. I think some conservatives would say that they've been fully corrected but haven't had time to reach the top. I think many conservatives who agree that they haven't been fully corrected believe that the momentum behind the correction is sufficient to ensure that it will be fully corrected soon (thus no further explicit action to correct is needed). Most liberals believe a full correction has not been made and feel it is important to keep pushing for policy that explicitly makes corrections. Perhaps, the most extreme liberals push for enough policy that many conservatives are fearful of over-correcting (discriminating against whites and/or men).

Oh no, we don’t want to overcorrect and end up with discrimination against white men!

White men: “Yeah, cause being discriminated against SUCKS!”

Women and minorities:  “I KNOW, right?”
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 02:45:38 PM
Taxi drivers are murdered at twice the rate of police officers . Police barely come in above food service managers for murders in careers..

Is that murders/ intentional harm or fatalities? Inquiring minds want to know!
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 04, 2019, 02:46:34 PM
I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

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

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

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

None of this is taken into account when furiously arguing that maybe there's an explanation for the difference in prescriptions for children that absolves white people of having to take any responsibility. And no matter how many times the other side presents research papers, Cochrane reviews and entire books detailing those indignities, the response is always the same: demand a specific example, then throw as much mud at that specific example as you can in the hope that enough sticks to obscure the truth. It's hard to tell whether what's happening is an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of race in America, or a cynical derailing of discussion, and it's hard to tell which prospect is more depressing.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 02:56:24 PM
Arguing that racism and sexism are systemic in the US is not a left wing conspiracy. Arguing that they are worse elsewhere is pointless.

No one said anything about a left-wing conspiracy. There's just massive left-wing bias. The fact that there's been 0 female presidents has more to do with traditional gender roles than leadership capability. I don't consider this a conspiracy, rather than a fact of society. I imagine this will change in the near future, just as it did for the first African-American president (people were pretty confident we'd never have one in our lifetimes until we did). As for HRC, she was a bad candidate for office, not necessarily because of her competence, but because she has been a very outspoken leader of the Democratic Party for years and thus was roundly disliked by anyone right-of-center (I voted for her). That and she lacked charisma (something Trump has in spades).

Again, no one's arguing racism and sexism don't exist, just that there's nothing that could ever be done to completely eliminate it, so we seriously need to consider as a country what's acceptable and what's not, and accept that different people have different opinions in these categories.

Am I taking crazy pills, or are traditional gender roles a clear example of systemic gender discrimination?

No crazy pills needed. Traditional gender roles ≠ systemic gender discrimination.

Two other posters, as well as myself disagree. I don't think a discussion about what to do about or whether systemic discrimination exists will be very fruitful if posters have such widely differing definitions of what it even is.

Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

I was curious so I looked it up. Looks like police patrol officers clock in around #14, with about 15 deaths per 100K workers per year.

This is an older report, but it claims #2. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/work-related-homicides-the-facts.pdf (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/work-related-homicides-the-facts.pdf) If you have a newer citation please share. Though to be honest it is not very relevant, because only one occupation is trained in the use of deadly force (outside of the military, which of course has a much higher death rate (though they don't call it murder)).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 02:58:27 PM
Police work is difficult and dangerous, and we should all respect that. But when a criminal kills a cop, that's a capital offense. The state spends huge resources to arrest the person who did it, and then depending upon the municipality, even put them to death. DAs aren't shy about prosecuting cop killers, and juries aren't shy about convicting them.

When a cop kills an unarmed black man though, comparatively little is often done about it. In fact, tons of people get righteously indignant at even the suggestion that the cops could be doing something better. The President demonizes athletes that peacefully try to draw attention to the subject.

This is what "Black Lives Matter" means. And it's why we don't need a "Blue Lives Matter" movement. Everyone universally agrees that killing a cop is terrible. People in the highest offices often don't agree that a cop wrongfully killing an unarmed black person is bad.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 03:05:02 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Do you think there is some sort of natural law or order that explains why we haven't had a female president, or why females are so underrepresented as executives?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 04, 2019, 03:08:02 PM
I work doing research in the healthcare field. Anytime we do a study we need to collect gender and race. Even if not the primary focus, there is a whole discipline of "racial disparities in health care". Social-economic status and access explains much, but not all of the differences. I'm assuming the people who do this research have studied this question with more detail and nuance than some people's off the cuff remarks or assumptions.

And the aim of this research is not to reduce to zero health outcomes between blacks and whites (which might not be possible). The purpose is to understand, reduce or eliminate any systemic differences in the ways minorities have less access to care, their quality of care, or are treated differently when presenting for care. It benefits all of us to have a healthy populace so I don't see why this should be seen as controversial or considered beneath examining.   

It wasn't all that long ago that we had the Tuskegee syphilis study (You think of these horrible things as being in the past, but this particular study ended less than 50 years ago, and only due to a whistle blower calling attention to the study).
In my state (NC) people were sterilized without their consent for being "mentally defective", and it was heavily racist who was chosen to be sterilized. This eugenics board was only dissolved in 1977, and only in 2003 involuntary sterilization laws were overturned.   

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on March 04, 2019, 03:10:07 PM
Maybe the right answer is to apply a mindset of conservatism to ourselves and liberalism to others.  That sounds pretty well-adjusted.  Thoughts?       

I love this. I liked tyort's contribution as well.

The way I've always thought of it, is that I'm conservative on an individual to individual basis, but I'm liberal when it comes to the macro level issues.

If a disadvantaged person wants to better their life, I'd tell them to work harder, work smarter, live leaner, negotiate, read books and get smarter. All that shit. Voting liberal won't help their lives on an individual basis.

But on the macro level, white men empirically wield outsized power. This is not because they're more talented than women/minorities. It's not because they work harder. There are obvious, systemic issues that need to be addressed. So the personal conservatism that I practice in my own life does zero good on the national stage.

That's why I vote liberal. We need people who understand these issues and are willing to address them. Many conservatives at best, don't understand or won't acknowledge the issues, and at worst, actively work to exacerbate the issues.

I think that's a simplistic view. I don't believe in "quotas" but I generally agree that we should be taking some affirmative action to help underprivileged minorities. My view is that the best way to do this is by avoiding hiring practices that emphasise wealth/connections (e.g. stuffy interviews) and by promoting practices that reveal talent (e.g. scholarships funded for poor/low SES individuals; heavy use of aptitude or skills-based testing in job interviews).

So in that sense you could call me "liberal" because I want to see a fairer society with less engrained privilege.

But in another sense I'm fairly illiberal in that I believe the best and brightest should be taxed less and I have no issues with seeing the less talented in society barely scrape by, wages wise. I don't believe in redistribution.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on March 04, 2019, 03:11:01 PM
Quote
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

No, I wouldn't call it gender discrimination in other species. I would apply it specifically to humans. Like many other social interactions, I don't think we should look to other species in the animal kingdom to justify human actions. Many species in the animal kingdom have a very loose relationship with sexual consent, which does not excuse rape among humans. Many species in the animal kingdom eat their young, which does not excuse killing and eating babies in human societies.

Are you making the argument that strict gender roles that prevent women from positions of leadership and power is a good thing?

Quote
This is an older report, but it claims #2. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/work-related-homicides-the-facts.pdf If you have a newer citation please share.

I was looking at deaths, not specifically homicides, which would go a long way towards explaining the discrepancy.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 04, 2019, 03:13:08 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

Can it not be both?

Also, can you give me some examples of the benefits it provides to society at the stage of development that most first world nations are currently at?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 03:29:42 PM
I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

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

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

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

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

What part of reality did I not acknowledge? I only acknowledged that people on this board are characterizing others as misogynists or racists or trolls when they decline to agree with their claim of institutional racism and patriarchy in modern-day America. And by institutional, I mean pervading our institutions, not prevalent in pockets here and there.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 03:36:14 PM
What part of reality did I not acknowledge? I only acknowledged that people on this board are characterizing others as misogynists or racists or trolls when they decline to agree with their claim of institutional racism and patriarchy in modern-day America. And by institutional, I mean pervading our institutions, not prevalent in pockets here and there.

Has anyone been called a racist or a misogynist in this thread? I saw steveo get called a troll but that's about it.

I'm more than willing to characterize someone as denying objective realities when they doubt the existence of institutionalized racism in the face of things like state legislatures actively working to suppress the black vote though. I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Watchmaker on March 04, 2019, 03:39:53 PM
Police Officers are highly trained professionals. I have high expectations of them. Higher expectations than I have for criminals. If an officer cannot properly fulfill their duties (which includes de-escalation and non-violent solutions), they should find another line of work.

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

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

 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 04, 2019, 03:44:10 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

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

No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women. I expect more women to rise, but I never expect to see complete parity due to the child-bearing and -rearing process. But I wouldn't be upset either if it turned out I was wrong.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 03:51:48 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

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

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

Some societies decided that the women should be inncharge for those exact same reasons, so there still isn't anything natural about a patriarchy. Nor a matriarchy, since there seems to be a lot of intent to misconstrue around here.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 04, 2019, 04:00:47 PM
No, my comment earlier was it is a byproduct of traditional gender roles. I think traditional gender roles are a byproduct to a good extent of biology, in that women spent a lot more time than men in the gestation and nurturing of little children, especially in the earlier eras of higher infant mortality and no birth control. And I don't believe this was a coordinated effort by men to create a patriarchy, any more than it was a coordinated effort by women.

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

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

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

Agree with this. Women will probably never reach parity in construction jobs because men are stronger. Men will probably never reach parity in care giving roles. There's probably no biological reason why men are any better at most of today's high power jobs than women are though.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mm1970 on March 04, 2019, 06:20:14 PM
More men than women may want the big job. More men may do a better job than women. People get to vote and if they don't vote for a female maybe that is just societies call on how they view the candidate. Maybe better female candidates will come along over time. The point is trying to simplify complex issues into a simple statement about the patriarchy and racism etc is not in my opinion good enough.

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

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

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

Quote
Maybe better female candidates will come along over time.

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2019, 06:23:39 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

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

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

It's ok to challenge "norms" and "tradition." That's a benefit of these wonderful complex brains of ours ( :
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: libertarian4321 on March 04, 2019, 06:59:33 PM
Why is the country so polarized? Because people have put their identity in political parties (or, rather, in opposition to whichever party they don't like). Recommended reading: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

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

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

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

I get the same thing as a Libertarian.

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

Yet in real life, away from the nastiness of social media, most people are far more moderate.  It's as if the radicals in both major parties are running things and carrying the narrative, and the middle of the roaders have just been cowed into letting them do so.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sixwings on March 04, 2019, 08:58:37 PM
Nah, this isn't a  both sides thing. Look at CPAC, Trump spent 2 hours doing nothing but mock liberal ideas and agendas. It wasn't about ideas but mocking. I'm not aware of any time Obama spent 2 straight hours mocking conservative ideas like that.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on March 04, 2019, 09:02:23 PM
Why is the country so polarized? Because people have put their identity in political parties (or, rather, in opposition to whichever party they don't like). Recommended reading: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-wrong-about-republicans-republicans-are-wrong-about-democrats/

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

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

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

I get the same thing as a Libertarian.

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

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

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

It's simple. No one wants to live in that world.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on March 04, 2019, 09:19:31 PM
I do, subject to a basic safety net so that people don't starve.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 10:14:53 PM
I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

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

If everyone's circumstances were always the result of their own decisions, it might be OK.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:13:38 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

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

For anyone that I have offended here I am not stating that I believe in a matriarchy or that health care may have an institutional bias against black people. I am stating that there is no proof at all within the points that have been made within this area of the discussion.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:20:06 PM
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So for instance is there a problem with women working as leaders of companies and if there is a problem what can be done to fix it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:23:48 PM
At the risk of sounding immodest, I've made probably the most full and complete post in this entire thread. The charge that I am trying to over-simply a complicated seems unfounded to me.

I have no problems with engaging with you.

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

It could but society is made up of approximately 50% females and they can vote. You have to let them vote and you don't get to decide that there votes are wrong. My opinion is that over time you will get a female president just as you had a black president. I don't see the need to focus on this as a big issue. For what it's worth I would personally vote for a female president just to see a female president in power assuming that they were reasonable. I wouldn't vote for a female president that was running on the basis of attacking the patriarchy.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:26:33 PM
To me, it sounds like we are actually all talking about the same thing.

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

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


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

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

Just FYI, he may not be arguing in good faith.  I tried to point this out to him multiple times in another thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/why-do-so-few-men-'followfanboysupport'-women-when-the-reverse-is-not-true/msg2256119/#msg2256119)...

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

If you don't have integrity you really shouldn't be debating issues with other people.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:28:31 PM
I just want to give @steveo my 100% support for his reasoned arguments instead of statistics wars by people who use stats as weapons without conducting  extensive multi-variant analysis to back up their conclusion.

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

10/10, excellent trolling.

If steveo is a troll, than so am I.

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

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

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

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

This isn't everyone but it's more than one person.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:31:49 PM
I consider this very bad discourse. I don't like lending credibility to conclusions not found in evidence.

So you disagree with some of the comments by Torque and others ? You should state this explicitly. It would make discussion a lot better if we had guidelines to use.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:35:52 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

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

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

Exactly.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:39:08 PM
Many if not most animals in the animal kingdom have traditional gender roles. Is this systemic gender discrimination, or natural and social roles which benefit society/species?

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

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

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

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

There is nothing natural about western society but it's what we have developed. If there is a problem within society we should be able to discuss it. I find it a lot easier to focus on specifics.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:41:37 PM
Agree with this. Women will probably never reach parity in construction jobs because men are stronger. Men will probably never reach parity in care giving roles. There's probably no biological reason why men are any better at most of today's high power jobs than women are though.

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

I think that this is a specific issue that could be looked at in detail as well. My opinion is that this is changing and it's getting close to positive discrimination. I work for a big company and women are encouraged a lot more than men. I'm not putting a judgement on this as being bad either.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:46:23 PM
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

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

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

If anyone makes a dissenting comment then vilify them because you can't win with logic.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ixtap on March 04, 2019, 11:48:17 PM
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

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

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

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

How many times have you used the phrase "extreme leftist" in response to statistics and academic studies in this thread?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:48:22 PM
I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

I'm not even this far extreme however I believe that this is a good base to work from. Luck plays a part in how well you do. I also believe that we probably do have to really push to provide equal opportunities for everyone. I also think that unfortunately people will fall by the wayside and we need to support these people.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 04, 2019, 11:55:43 PM
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

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

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

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

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

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

I don't know what to call people like that but extreme leftists is the best that I've come up with. I would think those people would like that label but if I'm wrong please provide me with an alternative. I'm liberal and there is no way that I am in anyway, shape of form aligned to the extreme view on this thread.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 05, 2019, 01:08:00 AM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 05, 2019, 01:17:00 AM
I'll pick just one argument for my rebuttal, FrugalToque's slam dunk racism study. Here are my questions: Do black people tend to see more black doctors, and do the differences in prescriptions differ between races for doctors? Do black children express pain to their doctors differently that might explain some of the difference? Do black children disproportionately visit ERs compared to white children, who might only be sent to the ER after their primary physician has directed them? Do black parents or black doctors reject opioid prescriptions more so than their white counterparts due to their known dangers of addiction? And finally, if after eliminating all of these sources of potential bias some bias still exists, do white doctors have less empathy for black patients (and perhaps vice versa), and if so is this a sign of racism?

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

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

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

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

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

This is a perfect example. Don't discuss any of the half-dozen examples I gave, but focus instead on a single sentence for rhetorical effect. Again: black people lose out in the job market, they're regularly deliberately disenfranchised, they're disproportionately mistreated by law enforcement, they don't get the same medical treatment, and they die sooner. There are dozens of other spheres in which they get a shitty deal. That's the reality that's not being acknowledged.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 03:40:56 AM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

I'm 45 and I've only ever voted for the left. I think that puts your comment and judgement into it's proper perspective. My parents always voted for the left.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 03:49:53 AM
This is a perfect example. Don't discuss any of the half-dozen examples I gave, but focus instead on a single sentence for rhetorical effect. Again: black people lose out in the job market, they're regularly deliberately disenfranchised, they're disproportionately mistreated by law enforcement, they don't get the same medical treatment, and they die sooner. There are dozens of other spheres in which they get a shitty deal. That's the reality that's not being acknowledged.

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

I can acknowledge the reality of the situation and even want to do something about without believing that the system is setup to screw black people (or whoever) over.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: runbikerun on March 05, 2019, 04:29:13 AM
I give up. There's no point in discussing this any further: steveo knows better than everyone else what the left is, what structural racism is, whether it exists and whether we need to worry about it, and trying to argue otherwise is utterly fruitless.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 05, 2019, 05:29:56 AM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MasterStache on March 05, 2019, 05:32:29 AM
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

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

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

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

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

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

I guess I am an extremist in Steveo's eyes. I do believe in using academic studies/statistics/ along with personal experiences to support/draw conclusions. Hell it's why I am here on a blog about FIRE. I used statistics yesterday to explain to my 9 year old how getting the flu shot greatly reduced her chances of getting the flue. Sometimes I think a person simply creates a label in order to justify their own position. Kind of like trying to elevate it and make it appear as though it's more rational. What if we called Steveo's position "shit sandwich?" Sure doesn't sound appealing now. ( : "Extremist" has a negative connotation. It denotes more of a political viewpoint outside of social norms that may call for extreme measures. Personally I just don't see that here at all. This discussion certainly is hampered by the "extremist" labeling of viewpoints. Too bad it continued past the point of claiming it would be stopped.   
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 05, 2019, 07:49:12 AM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

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

Neither the Republican party (far right) nor the Democratic party (center-right) in the United States are left wing.  Who exactly were you voting for?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 05, 2019, 08:38:23 AM
If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem?  I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?

Toque.

That would be completely irrelevant. Slavery was wrong for moral reasons. (Let's say you run your analysis and it happened to come up that slaves lived longer? Would we suddenly agree that the Southern way-of-life was beneficial to the slave? One thing I'd be willing to bet was that slaves were less susceptible to death by the tropical diseases prevalent in the South during the Antebellum period.)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: robartsd on March 05, 2019, 09:23:10 AM
Neither the Republican party (far right) nor the Democratic party (center-right) in the United States are left wing.  Who exactly were you voting for?
I think we disagree on what center is (I do agree that the Democratic party as a whole doesn't push nearly as far left as the Republican party pushes towards the far leftright).

I tend to agree with this view of the political spectrum (https://medium.com/@otakuproxy/the-whole-left-right-political-spectrum-is-outdated-bbc9841d5128):

(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*SQ8ZWgx3mjw-5V_inSU6ow@2x.jpeg)

I see Democrats as scattered throughout regions 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18; Republicans as occupying regions 10 and 13 (with much more concentration in 10).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Versatile on March 05, 2019, 10:16:53 AM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: OurTown on March 05, 2019, 10:31:00 AM
I don't see that this has come up yet:  https://righteousmind.com/

I read the book, it's based in large part on the "Elephant in the Brain."
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Malloy on March 05, 2019, 10:33:10 AM
Does it seem to anyone else like many critiques of "the left" or "the extreme left" seem to revolve around people upset that someone on the internet thinks they are racist or sexist?  How does that work exactly?

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

I can't imagine screwing the environment, the Supreme Court, net neutrality, and whole bunch of other things that are important to me out of spite because I'm mad that I don't get to "just ask questions" about whether maybe women aren't cut out to be CEOs.  By the way, the "extreme left" or whatever thinks that all of us liberals are just as racist and sexist too. They think that Kamala Harris is basically as bad as a rogue Chicago cop.  They think Elizabeth Warren is culturally appropriating.  They think Cory Booker is a neoliberal (whatever that is).  I guess I just don't think that whatever this caricature of "the left" has that much power.  And I would like for "the right" to get their kook house in order before complaining about our fringes.  I mean, you elected someone who didn't believe Obama was born in the US.  Our kooks aren't the head of the party at least. 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: EvenSteven on March 05, 2019, 10:37:20 AM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

I think a lot of it may be due to what people mean when they are talking about institutional racism or sexism. Steveo has flatly denied that institutional racism exists, but if it does it is racist against whites.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 10:43:56 AM
Versatile, I think it's because when anyone who posts information that is contrary to his views, he labels them as "extreme left" which is inflammatory (and not even remotely accurate) and also dismissing any fact-based arguments. He is name calling and not arguing in good faith. He will argue that people have not given enough "proof" for some argument like patriarchy, but then will also say statistics and journal articles are not "proof" or "fact" and has also come out and said  "I personally don't believe in the patriarchy and there is no way that you can prove that it exists."

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

At think at this point we have to say, people will have their own opinions and prejudices apparently Steveo is "triggered" by the term patriarchy. That's fine. He should just come out and say it, and not waste everyone's time in pretending he is being rational or objective about this topic when he is not.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mm1970 on March 05, 2019, 10:58:06 AM
We don't WANT facts.  Facts are too easy.  We want to argue about things that are just opinions and talk about how they are facts.

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

Hey, I'm just totally reasonable.

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

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

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

Which is pretty typical, I must admit.  Many many many people are like this.  They don't, however, claim to be the most logical of logical people.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 11:06:24 AM
Here is an example, just in 1 of steveo's posts, after a reasoned post that referenced statistics as well as a journal paper, of steveo saying that they a) don't know what they are doing, b) no sane person would agree with them, c) they are irrational and not logical, d) they are confrontational, and e) they have given no proof whatsoever.

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

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

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

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

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

I will give Steveo the benefit of the doubt that he is simply inexperienced with arguing with people who have more basis for their argument than him and is reacting in an emotional way, and is not a troll.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ChewMeUp on March 05, 2019, 11:16:43 AM
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

It's how they silence the other side.  Disagree with them, label them, ban them.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 05, 2019, 11:39:53 AM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 12:03:39 PM

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

[/quote]

"racism is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes": no one is arguing this. Can you please show where people are stating this?
 
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: mathlete on March 05, 2019, 12:09:06 PM
Me: *Have a degree in statistics. Pull out 7-10 references to support my argument*

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

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

Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on March 05, 2019, 12:16:42 PM
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

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

Have you contacted a moderator as was suggested in the other thread? Nothing from your previous account (CheezM) looked the least bit controversial, it's possible that it was just a mistake.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 05, 2019, 12:22:57 PM
This guy summarizes my main thoughts on race:

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

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

I miss that guy. His successor stokes the right-leaning flames, while a whole host of others stoke the left-leaning flames. Meanwhile, the ones in the middle see the racism on the right and the persecution complex on the left and wonder where they fit, given they are attacked from both sides.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 05, 2019, 12:27:31 PM
Me: *Have a degree in statistics. Pull out 7-10 references to support my argument*

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

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

I love centrists.


A - B is a child rapist!
B - No I'm not!
Centrist - Let's meet half way.  B is a rapist, but not of children.  Anything else is unfair.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Versatile on March 05, 2019, 12:47:50 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll let Steveo define what he believes as far as your second point.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ChewMeUp on March 05, 2019, 12:50:57 PM
the ones in the middle see the racism on the right and the persecution complex on the left and wonder where they fit, given they are attacked from both sides.

Love it and VERY accurate.  I think the persecution complex has far surpassed it's far right counterpart, however.  But both do still exist.  I just think the left sets the bar so far left that they moved the center to the left.  In other words, people who are truly in the middle are now being labeled right wing racists.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Versatile on March 05, 2019, 12:59:43 PM
Versatile, I think it's because when anyone who posts information that is contrary to his views, he labels them as "extreme left" which is inflammatory (and not even remotely accurate) and also dismissing any fact-based arguments. He is name calling and not arguing in good faith. He will argue that people have not given enough "proof" for some argument like patriarchy, but then will also say statistics and journal articles are not "proof" or "fact" and has also come out and said  "I personally don't believe in the patriarchy and there is no way that you can prove that it exists."

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

At think at this point we have to say, people will have their own opinions and prejudices apparently Steveo is "triggered" by the term patriarchy. That's fine. He should just come out and say it, and not waste everyone's time in pretending he is being rational or objective about this topic when he is not.

Labels are bad, I agree totally. Even the words Liberal and Conservative are loaded with presumptions which is unfortunate.

I understand his points and I don't think he is making them in bad faith. Have you ever considered that you both could be right to various degrees? What bothers me is when he shares his personal life experience and he is mocked for it. Just because somebody else has a different experience doesn't mean it invalidates his experiences.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ChewMeUp on March 05, 2019, 01:03:33 PM
Versatile, I think it's because when anyone who posts information that is contrary to his views, he labels them as "extreme left" which is inflammatory (and not even remotely accurate) and also dismissing any fact-based arguments. He is name calling and not arguing in good faith. He will argue that people have not given enough "proof" for some argument like patriarchy, but then will also say statistics and journal articles are not "proof" or "fact" and has also come out and said  "I personally don't believe in the patriarchy and there is no way that you can prove that it exists."

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

At think at this point we have to say, people will have their own opinions and prejudices apparently Steveo is "triggered" by the term patriarchy. That's fine. He should just come out and say it, and not waste everyone's time in pretending he is being rational or objective about this topic when he is not.

Labels are bad, I agree totally. Even the words Liberal and Conservative are loaded with presumptions which is unfortunate.

I understand his points and I don't think he is making them in bad faith. Have you ever considered that you both could be right to various degrees? What bothers me is when he shares his personal life experience and he is mocked for it. Just because somebody else has a different experience doesn't mean it invalidates his experiences.

Not trying to claim anyone is a victim here, but isn't it something that it's mostly right leaning persons (and true centrists) that get mocked and attacked for their views nowadays?  At least on forums like this.  The left tries to normalize it.  It's why we have the "silent majority."
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Versatile on March 05, 2019, 01:06:31 PM

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

[/quote]

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

Have I misunderstood? Was the study not given as evidence of institutional racism? Perhaps I shouldn't have said "sole", but usually people throw up what they consider their strongest evidence.
 
FrugalTogue?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FrugalToque on March 05, 2019, 01:10:38 PM
the ones in the middle see the racism on the right and the persecution complex on the left and wonder where they fit, given they are attacked from both sides.

... In other words, people who are truly in the middle are now being labeled right wing racists.

Wow, dude.  It looks to me like you have the serious persecution complex there.

Toque.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 01:11:56 PM
No it doesn't invalidate his experiences. But he uses his experiences to deny other people's experiences. And to deny the existence of societal problems. You can see how he uses his experience (I'm assuming as a white male but I could be wrong) that since he hasn't been sexually harrassed or targeted, or that he's never been stopped by the police for no reason, means these aren't really happening. Or if they are for other reasons than sexism or racism. Really any other possible reason than sexism or racism.

I'm a pretty clueless white female, but I am astounded at the level that Steveo and other male posters perceive themselves as the victim, or potentially the victim of say reverse racism or discrimination, at the same time appear oblivious of discount much of American history up and including current events. I would say being called a "troll" for example ranks a bit lower in victimhood than say a statistically significantly increased risk of being shot dead by a police officer during a traffic stop or being incarcerated for a much longer sentence for drug possession of the same amount say compared to a white male. One may hurt your feelings, but the other one is life impacting.     
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

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

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

I'm Australian and I've always voted for the left which is the labour party. You've explained though exactly my thoughts on the left. The left in my opinion is the party on the left. I consider going further than that becoming more extreme. I get the impression as you state that a lot of posters on here are so far to the left the major parties are simply not going to reflect their viewpoints.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ChewMeUp on March 05, 2019, 01:22:58 PM
the ones in the middle see the racism on the right and the persecution complex on the left and wonder where they fit, given they are attacked from both sides.

... In other words, people who are truly in the middle are now being labeled right wing racists.

Wow, dude.  It looks to me like you have the serious persecution complex there.

Toque.

I am missing that part of my brain.  I don't have a victim mentality and never have.  I actually think most people thrive on feeling like a victim.  That goes for right, left and everything in between.  I just don't know how to relate to it.  It's not possible for me to have a persecution complex.  I'm just pointing out what I see.  But based on your previous comment, you have a major chip on your shoulder.  I'd rather not even engage in this type of discussion with you and will probably just step away from it at this point.  It's not why I'm on this site.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: slow hand slow plan on March 05, 2019, 01:25:36 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-20-deadliest-jobs-in-america-ranked/11/

https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/by_the_numbers_job_with_the_number_1_murder_rate_taxi_drivers.html

As far as just work place deaths police are aaround 14 - 15 depending on the list
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/workplace-fatalities-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ChewMeUp on March 05, 2019, 01:28:13 PM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

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

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

I'm Australian and I've always voted for the left which is the labour party. You've explained though exactly my thoughts on the left. The left in my opinion is the party on the left. I consider going further than that becoming more extreme. I get the impression as you state that a lot of posters on here are so far to the left the major parties are simply not going to reflect their viewpoints.

The Democratic party (left) is being split right now.  It's almost impossible to represent a variety of viewpoints through 2 single parties.  And what happens is we end up stereotyping everyone.  You are a Republican?  Racist, bigot, sexist.  You are a Democrat?  Socialist, Communist.

The reality is that most people are none of the above.  But the Democratic party is very much being split right now by Euro-Socialists (NOT communists but definitely much further left for American politics) and more centrist liberals.  The vocal posters here tend to be pretty far left.  I'm not convinced that's a majority of the readers, but the most vocal are for sure pretty far left.

This is my last post on this thread, it's a cluster fuck and nothing positive that will come from it.  People get far too fired up and angry when it comes to politics nowadays.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Versatile on March 05, 2019, 01:30:02 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toque.

Are you talking about me? I haven't opined on any of this other than I think you shouldn't call Steveo a troll. Do you have a question for me?

I have a pretty good sense of what a moderator does and I would think fairness should matter, even to dissenting opinions. People need to hear alternate viewpoints if nothing else to challenge or validate their own positions. Plus one has to deal in reality as not everybody agrees on the same value system. Many times there are very valid reasons for that. Don't you want to know why? Isn't it better to understand where the other side is coming from? But no, I don't know how you got the job or what your boss's guidelines are for discussion. Is it anything different from normal, fair discourse? I wouldn't think so.







Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 01:32:06 PM
nvrmind
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FreshPrincess on March 05, 2019, 01:32:23 PM

I'm a pretty clueless white female, but I am astounded at the level that Steveo and other male posters perceive themselves as the victim, or potentially the victim of say reverse racism or discrimination, at the same time appear oblivious of discount much of American history up and including current events.   

I wasn't planning on commenting, but I just can't with this...

There is no. such. thing. as "reverse" racism or discrimination.  There is racism and discrimination. Period. Full stop.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 01:36:41 PM

I'm a pretty clueless white female, but I am astounded at the level that Steveo and other male posters perceive themselves as the victim, or potentially the victim of say reverse racism or discrimination, at the same time appear oblivious of discount much of American history up and including current events.   

I wasn't planning on commenting, but I just can't with this...

There is no. such. thing. as "reverse" racism or discrimination.  There is racism and discrimination. Period. Full stop.

It is a term and has a specific meaning. Example in a sentence
"Some people view affirmative action as a form of reverse racism". I can also make a definite argument why it is a stupid term, but there was a reason I used it. Because Steveo has referenced this idea many times, that things have gone "too far". That basically he's a victim of reverse racism. 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/politics/reverse-racism/
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Versatile on March 05, 2019, 01:39:56 PM
No it doesn't invalidate his experiences. But he uses his experiences to deny other people's experiences. And to deny the existence of societal problems. You can see how he uses his experience (I'm assuming as a white male but I could be wrong) that since he hasn't been sexually harrassed or targeted, or that he's never been stopped by the police for no reason, means these aren't really happening. Or if they are for other reasons than sexism or racism. Really any other possible reason than sexism or racism.

I'm a pretty clueless white female, but I am astounded at the level that Steveo and other male posters perceive themselves as the victim, or potentially the victim of say reverse racism or discrimination, at the same time appear oblivious of discount much of American history up and including current events. I would say being called a "troll" for example ranks a bit lower in victimhood than say a statistically significantly increased risk of being shot dead by a police officer during a traffic stop or being incarcerated for a much longer sentence for drug possession of the same amount say compared to a white male. One may hurt your feelings, but the other one is life impacting.   

What if I were to say to you that both men and women of all ethnicities have both privilege and prejudice practiced for/against them? That when a man says Example A is evidence of a prejudice he is NOT saying Example B of prejudice against a woman is invalidated. Can they both exist? Absolutely.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 01:41:24 PM
the ones in the middle see the racism on the right and the persecution complex on the left and wonder where they fit, given they are attacked from both sides.

Love it and VERY accurate.  I think the persecution complex has far surpassed it's far right counterpart, however.  But both do still exist.  I just think the left sets the bar so far left that they moved the center to the left.  In other words, people who are truly in the middle are now being labeled right wing racists.

Exactly. I'm just going to ignore the poor arguments and personal attacks going forward. It's not worth it. This is the issue - they are so upset with being called extreme leftists but in my life time I've never encountered the left being so extreme. This isn't the left of my life or my parents and it's not something that I am going to support.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 01:43:03 PM
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

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

It's not worth arguing with them.

Seriously there argument and proof are really low quality and then they rant and rage. I thought it was getting better yesterday but I don't think it will. It's almost like know they've lost the debate and all they have left is a tantrum.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: FreshPrincess on March 05, 2019, 01:43:24 PM

I'm a pretty clueless white female, but I am astounded at the level that Steveo and other male posters perceive themselves as the victim, or potentially the victim of say reverse racism or discrimination, at the same time appear oblivious of discount much of American history up and including current events.   

I wasn't planning on commenting, but I just can't with this...

There is no. such. thing. as "reverse" racism or discrimination.  There is racism and discrimination. Period. Full stop.

You may not agree with the term but it is a term and has a specific meaning. Example in a sentence
"Some people view affirmative action as a form of reverse racism".

https://www.dictionary.com/e/politics/reverse-racism/

The definition itself kind of agrees with my point:

"...it's actually just another version of good ol’ fashioned racism."  I do get that it's a thing for people to say - so, you are correct, I believe it is an incorrect thing to say because racism is racism is racism.  It's a personal pet peeve.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 01:44:26 PM
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.

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

It's not worth arguing with them.

Seriously there argument and proof are really low quality and then they rant and rage. I thought it was getting better yesterday but I don't think it will. It's almost like know they've lost the debate and all they have left is a tantrum.


I'm sorry you are so misunderstood. At least you tried to illuminate us.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 05, 2019, 01:50:59 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He won't.  I've asked him multiple times to explain his definition of patriarchy already.  I'm left to assume that he is purposefully arguing against a straw man that most of the posters here are not arguing 'for' while pretty much ignoring what they actually post.  I continue to hope that I'm wrong and he'll eventually address the issue, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 05, 2019, 01:51:28 PM
Me: *Have a degree in statistics. Pull out 7-10 references to support my argument*

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

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

I hate to break out the cliché, but there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I don't question your competence nor that of the researchers, but the conclusions are often drawn to support the concluder's beliefs, and this really has nothing to do with statistics. For example, race correlates with opioid prescriptions for children does not imply racism causes a reduction in opioid prescriptions for children. That may be the case, but it was in no way proven by that study. (I realize others may disagree, though.)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 01:52:05 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never denied that sexism or racism exists. I've never denied that institutional racism existed in the past but today it is becoming more and more a thing of the past and I don't believe that it exists systemically today.

I've gone over this already though and the people who disagree with me cannot provide any logical coherent argument against my point.

I'll state what a stated earlier but in some more detail:-

Do you believe that statistics are the basis for your proof in the patriarchy & institutional racism ? If so then you must believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide much more significantly than woman and men die on average younger than women.

These points follow on from each other utilising the logic of the people who are all in a state over the proof that patriarchy & institutional racism exist.

You can't have the argument both ways if you are being logical.

Of course like myself you can state that society is complex and it's not as simple as western society being a matriarchy or a patriarchy. That is all I am stating and there is nothing at all wrong with believing that.

This then leads onto the whole point of this thread. There are various techniques that leftists who are way more further to the left than most western political parties utilise that do not appear to be techniques that people of good moral character utilise and these techniques like violence in my opinion are the sort of stuff that shouldn't be tolerated. This can be encapsulated in the idea of vilifying anyone who disagrees with their simplistic and blunt social theories.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 01:54:16 PM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

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

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

I'm Australian and I've always voted for the left which is the labour party. You've explained though exactly my thoughts on the left. The left in my opinion is the party on the left. I consider going further than that becoming more extreme. I get the impression as you state that a lot of posters on here are so far to the left the major parties are simply not going to reflect their viewpoints.

The Democratic party (left) is being split right now.  It's almost impossible to represent a variety of viewpoints through 2 single parties.  And what happens is we end up stereotyping everyone.  You are a Republican?  Racist, bigot, sexist.  You are a Democrat?  Socialist, Communist.

The reality is that most people are none of the above.  But the Democratic party is very much being split right now by Euro-Socialists (NOT communists but definitely much further left for American politics) and more centrist liberals.  The vocal posters here tend to be pretty far left.  I'm not convinced that's a majority of the readers, but the most vocal are for sure pretty far left.

This is my last post on this thread, it's a cluster fuck and nothing positive that will come from it.  People get far too fired up and angry when it comes to politics nowadays.

This is what i think is happening. At least this thread has made me realise how far to the left some people are.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 01:59:25 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He won't.  I've asked him multiple times to explain his definition of patriarchy already.  I'm left to assume that he is purposefully arguing against a straw man that most of the posters here are not arguing 'for' while pretty much ignoring what they actually post.  I continue to hope that I'm wrong and he'll eventually address the issue, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Let's be very clear I don't believe in any form of the patriarchy. We have western society. It's not a patriarchy. It's not a matriarchy. It's the social structure that we have created. I am not discussing the patriarchy because it's a social construct that you and others have made up to view the world from. I think it's an extremely poor way to view the world.

It is pretty funny that you actually accuse me of not facing the issue as well.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 05, 2019, 02:00:01 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-20-deadliest-jobs-in-america-ranked/11/

https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/01/by_the_numbers_job_with_the_number_1_murder_rate_taxi_drivers.html

As far as just work place deaths police are aaround 14 - 15 depending on the list
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/workplace-fatalities-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/

From your link: http://media.syracuse.com/opinion_impact/photo/murder-on-the-jobjpg-5aa7ebfad9df8387.jpg (http://media.syracuse.com/opinion_impact/photo/murder-on-the-jobjpg-5aa7ebfad9df8387.jpg)
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 05, 2019, 02:00:42 PM
Nobody here is extreme left. Nobody. Extreme leftism means forcibly nationalising factories and offices and executing the owners as class enemies. Not a single opinion here has gone anywhere beyond the centre-left. You can call yourself middle-ground all you want, but you're not.

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

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

I'm Australian and I've always voted for the left which is the labour party. You've explained though exactly my thoughts on the left. The left in my opinion is the party on the left. I consider going further than that becoming more extreme. I get the impression as you state that a lot of posters on here are so far to the left the major parties are simply not going to reflect their viewpoints.

The Democratic party (left) is being split right now.  It's almost impossible to represent a variety of viewpoints through 2 single parties.  And what happens is we end up stereotyping everyone.  You are a Republican?  Racist, bigot, sexist.  You are a Democrat?  Socialist, Communist.

The reality is that most people are none of the above.  But the Democratic party is very much being split right now by Euro-Socialists (NOT communists but definitely much further left for American politics) and more centrist liberals.  The vocal posters here tend to be pretty far left.  I'm not convinced that's a majority of the readers, but the most vocal are for sure pretty far left.

This is my last post on this thread, it's a cluster fuck and nothing positive that will come from it.  People get far too fired up and angry when it comes to politics nowadays.

This is what i think is happening. At least this thread has made me realise how far to the left some people are.

You have to remember that the "center" in the US looks kinda right wing to most of the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 02:01:03 PM
Me: *Have a degree in statistics. Pull out 7-10 references to support my argument*

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

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

I hate to break out the cliché, but there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I don't question your competence nor that of the researchers, but the conclusions are often drawn to support the concluder's beliefs, and this really has nothing to do with statistics. For example, race correlates with opioid prescriptions for children does not imply racism causes a reduction in opioid prescriptions for children. That may be the case, but it was in no way proven by that study. (I realize others may disagree, though.)

It's amazing how people can't see this. It's so amazing I'm wondering if they are even trying. I said earlier no sane person would jump to the conclusions that Torque for instance came up with. It's so over the top.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: OurTown on March 05, 2019, 02:01:28 PM
Racism is real and it sucks.  Racists are assholes.  I hate racists. 

So there is a lot of exaggerating going around on college campuses and online about what is "racism."  You can read about it here:  http://victimhoodculture.com/

Essentially, if you declare that everything is racist, then effectively nothing is racist.  We should probably define what is "racist" and stick to it.  There is also prejudice and insensitivity, neither of which is necessarily a great thing but they can be distinguished from outright racism.

If you are a racist reading my post and you think I am somehow on your side, you can fuck off.  Racism has no place in our society or our discourse.   
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 02:04:20 PM
You have to remember that the "center" in the US looks kinda right wing to most of the rest of the world.

Maybe but geez the left looks pretty dysfunctional. I've never experienced such poor reasoning ability coupled with such over the top dramatics when it comes to personally attacking people. I'm serious as well.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 05, 2019, 02:19:28 PM
He won't.  I've asked him multiple times to explain his definition of patriarchy already.  I'm left to assume that he is purposefully arguing against a straw man that most of the posters here are not arguing 'for' while pretty much ignoring what they actually post.  I continue to hope that I'm wrong and he'll eventually address the issue, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Let's be very clear I don't believe in any form of the patriarchy. We have western society. It's not a patriarchy. It's not a matriarchy. It's the social structure that we have created. I am not discussing the patriarchy because it's a social construct that you and others have made up to view the world from. I think it's an extremely poor way to view the world.

It is pretty funny that you actually accuse me of not facing the issue as well.

I didn't ask what you believe in.  I asked how you personally define the word patriarchy.  In other words, what are you referring to when you use the word patriarchy?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Boofinator on March 05, 2019, 02:20:57 PM
Racism is real and it sucks.  Racists are assholes.  I hate racists. 

So there is a lot of exaggerating going around on college campuses and online about what is "racism."  You can read about it here:  http://victimhoodculture.com/

Essentially, if you declare that everything is racist, then effectively nothing is racist.  We should probably define what is "racist" and stick to it.  There is also prejudice and insensitivity, neither of which is necessarily a great thing but they can be distinguished from outright racism.

If you are a racist reading my post and you think I am somehow on your side, you can fuck off.  Racism has no place in our society or our discourse.   

Well put.

ETA: Here's how the dictionary defines racism: "racism: the notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior"
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 02:21:57 PM
I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.

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

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

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

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

Toque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have never denied that sexism or racism exists. I've never denied that institutional racism existed in the past but today it is becoming more and more a thing of the past and I don't believe that it exists systemically today.

I've gone over this already though and the people who disagree with me cannot provide any logical coherent argument against my point.

I'll state what a stated earlier but in some more detail:-

Do you believe that statistics are the basis for your proof in the patriarchy & institutional racism ? If so then you must believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide much more significantly than woman and men die on average younger than women.

These points follow on from each other utilising the logic of the people who are all in a state over the proof that patriarchy & institutional racism exist.

You can't have the argument both ways if you are being logical.

Of course like myself you can state that society is complex and it's not as simple as western society being a matriarchy or a patriarchy. That is all I am stating and there is nothing at all wrong with believing that.

This then leads onto the whole point of this thread. There are various techniques that leftists who are way more further to the left than most western political parties utilise that do not appear to be techniques that people of good moral character utilise and these techniques like violence in my opinion are the sort of stuff that shouldn't be tolerated. This can be encapsulated in the idea of vilifying anyone who disagrees with their simplistic and blunt social theories.

Well I'm glad you posted this, because of the way you posted, I didn't really understand your beliefs since you didn't actually state them.

Your logic needs work. When anyone uses statistics, is is to support a framework or theory.
For example you state: "If so then you must believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide much more significantly than woman and men die on average younger than women." What is the mechanism that a matriarchy has been created in the United States, especially given the relatively recent ability for women to vote or other basic rights and priviledges? Now that you've explained why there is this matriarchy, what is the mechanism that it is causing men, such as by oppression to kill themselves, or to die younger? Are there other explanations that make more sense? Is there other information that supports this view, or do other facts undermine this theory, such as such as men committing rape and other violent crimes at a higher rate, or that men across the world regardless of societal structure have a shorter life span?

For example, here are facts. Females have less assets than males. Here in the US, and certainly much more so in other cultures that say an anthropologist would define as a patriarchy. There using this as a unifying theory, this explanation provides many mechanisms to explain this difference. Everything from in the past not them having legal rights to vote or to have assets or bank accounts, to differences in inheritances, educational attainment, to job access. Any one "fact" or piece of evidence needs to be weighed both how it fits in the framework or theory you have going, as well as alternative explanations.   A theory works when it a) explains a large amount of the evidence, b) there is not a compelling alternative explanation, and c) it can make predictions. There is also the law of parsimony. Because "science", one would rather have a theory that explains say 80% of findings, than a dozen isolated fragmentary theories that explains 85%.

Please explain to me your theory of matriarchy and its mechanisms.
 
Then others can compare your theory, to the frame work of patriarchy. And what mechanisms it uses to explain these pieces of information. Then you can actually see, which one has the preponderance of evidence. I don't think you actually want to do that.

Same thing for your claims of "extreme left" and hence racism against whites, versus claims of long-standing and entrenched racism against minorities in US society.

Same thing for your claim of calling people on the left "violent" (I guess compared to people on the extreme right?). 

Go ahead.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 02:37:01 PM
@partgypsy - you just aren't anywhere near getting what I am stating. You are so far off I can't really respond to what you wrote beacuse it's nothing at all like I stated. Try and discuss my points rather than stuff you just make up in your head.

I don't believe that my logic needs more work and a good way to view that is to clearly state that you haven't actually responded to what I stated. You seem to not understand my point and that is required prior to stating my logic is incorrect.

I'll try to explain the same point again (which I've done multiple times within this thread and you still don't get it):-

1. The use of blunt statistics are not proof of a patriarchy existing or institutional racism.
2. I don't believe in a patriarchy which is a social construct which you and others use to view the world. I also don't believe it's helpful and my proof is your and others inability to actually respond to clear flaws in your reasoning. I would also add that the vilification of myself is proof that there is something not quiet right in the way that you engage with the world and this seems to be a common theme of people that believe in the patriarchy.
3. I believe that institutional racism has existed in the past but currently this is not systemic.

My point regarding utilising the facts that I provided which are that men commit suicide more than women and men die on average younger than women is that these statistics do not prove that a matriarchy exists. They may be pointers to some problems within society that need to be addressed but when we address those problems it would be extremely stupid to rant and rage about racism and the matriarchy. I would use those statistics to try and look into the problem in detail and maybe the conclusion will be well all we can do is educate people on these issues and provide some support.

I will actually engage in your comment regarding females having less assets than males. This is a complex issue. For instance my wife has less Super (retirement accounts in Australia) than myself. My wife has also earned less than me due to having 3 kids and not having as high a paying a job. My wife would also get 1/2 of my Super if we divorced. She would also get all my assets if I die. My mum is in the same position with my dad. I understand that this is an anecdotal piece of evidence but the point being that the use of blunt statistics can provide a false impression. My take is to focus on opportunities rather than outcomes.

My advice to you is to try and look at statistics with some common sense. If you can't do this then I assume that you believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide more than women and die on average at a younger age than women. Maybe the best question is do you believe in a matriarchy due to these statistics ? If not why not beacuse you are not being internally consistent. I'll try to explain this in some more detail - if statistics are the basis of proof of your theory then you have to accept statistics that do not back up your theory otherwise you are cherry picking facts.

If you don't believe in the matriarchy then you are cherry picking facts whereas I am stating that these statistics are not proof of any dominant social structure. They are just pointers to potential issues.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Davnasty on March 05, 2019, 02:44:38 PM
Anyone else find it interesting that steveo is always the first person to bring up the word Patriarchy?
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 02:50:40 PM
Racism is real and it sucks.  Racists are assholes.  I hate racists. 

So there is a lot of exaggerating going around on college campuses and online about what is "racism."  You can read about it here:  http://victimhoodculture.com/

Essentially, if you declare that everything is racist, then effectively nothing is racist.  We should probably define what is "racist" and stick to it.  There is also prejudice and insensitivity, neither of which is necessarily a great thing but they can be distinguished from outright racism.

If you are a racist reading my post and you think I am somehow on your side, you can fuck off.  Racism has no place in our society or our discourse.   

This here is interesting as is that link. Real racism is disgusting.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 02:55:27 PM

I'm a pretty clueless white female, but I am astounded at the level that Steveo and other male posters perceive themselves as the victim, or potentially the victim of say reverse racism or discrimination, at the same time appear oblivious of discount much of American history up and including current events.   

I wasn't planning on commenting, but I just can't with this...

There is no. such. thing. as "reverse" racism or discrimination.  There is racism and discrimination. Period. Full stop.

I think we should be extremely clear on these points. There is racism. It exists. There is discrimination. There is also positive discrimination or you could call it affirmative action:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action.

Do you not believe in any form of affirmative action/positive discrimination ?

My impression is that people further to the left of myself definitely believe in positive discrimination and believe it is a good thing. I'm not sure on this issue. I think it can actually hurt the people it is meant to be helping.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MasterStache on March 05, 2019, 02:56:29 PM
You have to remember that the "center" in the US looks kinda right wing to most of the rest of the world.

Maybe but geez the left looks pretty dysfunctional. I've never experienced such poor reasoning ability coupled with such over the top dramatics when it comes to personally attacking people. I'm serious as well.

Do you even realize that you continually attack people by calling them dysfunctional, regularly referring to them as extreme, insinuating that they are ignorant, etc. etc.?

I am just asking because there sure seems to be a lot of double standards on your part. Why not just stick to debating what you disagree with? Reading through the thread I get the impression you are so fed up and just wanting to go off on everyone.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 05, 2019, 03:00:10 PM
Anyone else find it interesting that steveo is always the first person to bring up the word Patriarchy?

Yep.  And yet, he can't seem to define it...
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2019, 03:03:36 PM
@partgypsy - you just aren't anywhere near getting what I am stating. You are so far off I can't really respond to what you wrote beacuse it's nothing at all like I stated. Try and discuss my points rather than stuff you just make up in your head.

I don't believe that my logic needs more work and a good way to view that is to clearly state that you haven't actually responded to what I stated. You seem to not understand my point and that is required prior to stating my logic is incorrect.

I'll try to explain the same point again (which I've done multiple times within this thread and you still don't get it):-

1. The use of blunt statistics are not proof of a patriarchy existing or institutional racism.
2. I don't believe in a patriarchy which is a social construct which you and others use to view the world. I also don't believe it's helpful and my proof is your and others inability to actually respond to clear flaws in your reasoning. I would also add that the vilification of myself is proof that there is something not quiet right in the way that you engage with the world and this seems to be a common theme of people that believe in the patriarchy.
3. I believe that institutional racism has existed in the past but currently this is not systemic.

My point regarding utilising the facts that I provided which are that men commit suicide more than women and men die on average younger than women is that these statistics do not prove that a matriarchy exists. They may be pointers to some problems within society that need to be addressed but when we address those problems it would be extremely stupid to rant and rage about racism and the matriarchy. I would use those statistics to try and look into the problem in detail and maybe the conclusion will be well all we can do is educate people on these issues and provide some support.

I will actually engage in your comment regarding females having less assets than males. This is a complex issue. For instance my wife has less Super (retirement accounts in Australia) than myself. My wife has also earned less than me due to having 3 kids and not having as high a paying a job. My wife would also get 1/2 of my Super if we divorced. She would also get all my assets if I die. My mum is in the same position with my dad. I understand that this is an anecdotal piece of evidence but the point being that the use of blunt statistics can provide a false impression. My take is to focus on opportunities rather than outcomes.

My advice to you is to try and look at statistics with some common sense. If you can't do this then I assume that you believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide more than women and die on average at a younger age than women. Maybe the best question is do you believe in a matriarchy due to these statistics ? If not why not beacuse you are not being internally consistent. I'll try to explain this in some more detail - if statistics are the basis of proof of your theory then you have to accept statistics that do not back up your theory otherwise you are cherry picking facts.

If you don't believe in the matriarchy then you are cherry picking facts whereas I am stating that these statistics are not proof of any dominant social structure. They are just pointers to potential issues.

I guess we are even because you completely missed my point as well. Any two isolated facts neither proves or disproves a theory, whether it is a matriarchy or patriarchy. Facts and statistics are used to support or disprove a framework of understanding, which also includes a mechanism, or multiple mechanism. If you don't even understand what a theory or a construct is, then, I can't really help you.

Ps I don't need any help with logic. I have a phd in the sciences, and have done plenty of experimental design, statistics and even programming for my job. And btw I know you probably assume I "believe" in the patriarchy. I believe there are multiple models or framework to understand the world. Patriarchy and matriarchy were coined by anthropologists to make sense of different kind of societal structures. I think you you are taking the term patriarchy way too personally. I also agree with you, that while the US (as well as the majority of societies are patriarchal) we have a more egalitarian social structure now, which is good.  As a female I do not like the current administration and conservative branch of the government because (maybe because of their efforts to woo evangelicals, or just good ol' boyism) are trying to roll back laws and protections for females, which is regressive and NOT good. This includes the "gag rule" for ngos working in other countries, attacking planned parenthood, and redefining what rape and sexual assault is, to how rapes and sexual assaults need to be reported on campus. I also believe there should be paid maternity leave. Currently while "officially" women cannot be fired from their jobs for becoming pregnant, they can only take 16 weeks off before being eligible to be fired for that reason, and there is no mandatory paid leave. Daycare options suck in this country as well.   
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 03:31:41 PM
Any two isolated facts neither proves or disproves a theory, whether it is a matriarchy or patriarchy. Facts and statistics are used to support or disprove a framework of understanding, which also includes a mechanism, or multiple mechanism.

I'm cool with this.

I believe there are multiple models or framework to understand the world.

Of course.

atriarchy and matriarchy were coined by anthropologists to make sense of different kind of societal structures. I think you you are taking the term patriarchy way too personally.

The issue is how helpful these theories are. I'll give an example which I find stupid as well. Lots of guys believe in the Alpha male concept. I find this concept stupid. It doesn't in my opinion reflect reality or help guide your actions. So there are social theories that in my opinion aren't helpful. I think that the idea of the patriarchy is one of those theories.

I also agree with you, that while the US (as well as the majority of societies are patriarchal) we have a more egalitarian social structure now, which is good.

We have a much more egalitarian social structure and that is good. Unfortunately we also have people who appear to have really strong beliefs that society is so unfair. I don't believe this. Sure there are things to change but it's not like society is so bad. It's actually good.

As a female I do not like the current administration and conservative branch of the government because (maybe because of their efforts to woo evangelicals, or just good ol' boyism) are trying to roll back laws and protections for females, which is regressive and NOT good. This includes the "gag rule" for ngos working in other countries, attacking planned parenthood, and redefining what rape and sexual assault is, to how rapes and sexual assaults need to be reported on campus. I also believe there should be paid maternity leave. Currently while "officially" women cannot be fired from their jobs for becoming pregnant, they can only take 16 weeks off before being eligible to be fired for that reason, and there is no mandatory paid leave. Daycare options suck in this country as well.

I'm pretty much on-board with most of this stuff. I do think you need to call rape rape. I would hate to someone tried for rape when they whistled at a woman. These are good examples though. In Australia now guys really shouldn't wolf whistle women. I still think this sort of stuff happens too much but the cultural change has been pretty significant. I think we have similar maternity laws however when my wife gave birth she received 3 months additional paid leave. My sister in law is now receiving 1 year paid leave. Daycare in Australia is pretty good but it's expensive. I also live in a big city and I assume people in the country don't have the same level of facilities.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 03:36:45 PM
You have to remember that the "center" in the US looks kinda right wing to most of the rest of the world.

Maybe but geez the left looks pretty dysfunctional. I've never experienced such poor reasoning ability coupled with such over the top dramatics when it comes to personally attacking people. I'm serious as well.

Do you even realize that you continually attack people by calling them dysfunctional, regularly referring to them as extreme, insinuating that they are ignorant, etc. etc.?

I am just asking because there sure seems to be a lot of double standards on your part. Why not just stick to debating what you disagree with? Reading through the thread I get the impression you are so fed up and just wanting to go off on everyone.

This is just so over the top.

I am frustrated though. I call people extremist leftists because I consider myself on the left. There was push back on this point and I stated I've always voted for the left and these theories are far beyond my vision of the left. I stand by this comment but I'm happy to use another term. As for insinuating they are ignorant I think I've been pretty clear on stating that people have an inability to prove things they state they can prove. I'll also call the way a bunch of people debate on here dysfunctional.

For the record I have been attacked left, right and centre and yet you don't seem to comment on that.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: ChewMeUp on March 05, 2019, 03:41:20 PM
I also believe there should be paid maternity leave. Currently while "officially" women cannot be fired from their jobs for becoming pregnant, they can only take 16 weeks off before being eligible to be fired for that reason, and there is no mandatory paid leave. Daycare options suck in this country as well.

Ok, I guess I can't help but post one more :)

If not covered under FMLA, you can absolutely be fired due to pregnancy related absences.  There is no 16 week safety net.  Any employer with less than 50 employees is not bound by the FMLA.

More relevant to this conversation, and "Liberals vs Conservative:  why does it have to be this way?" - you mentioned you dislike the current administration because you believe they are out to screw over women.  Then in the same paragraph mention how you think we need paid maternity leave and protections for pregnant women.  Yet this administration is probably closer to making that happen than any I've ever seen in my lifetime.  The president campaigned on it, continues to campaign on it, and it's in his budget.  Another Republican Senator introduced actual legislation to do just that.  The same with massive Criminal Justice Reform that was actually passed.  All the talk of this racist administration, while they were passing massive criminal justice reform which was targeted at helping minority communities and unjust sentencing.

If we weren't so focused on our side vs your side, maybe we could focus on some of the good things that are actually happening.  And if we could actually focus on some of the good things, maybe we would make the progress that we all seem to be seeking.  But first we would have to recognize that most of us all want the same thing but don't seem to realize it.

This thread is a great example of how polarized we have become, to the point we can't even recognize when we are getting exactly what we are wanting.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on March 05, 2019, 03:54:34 PM
1. The use of blunt statistics are not proof of a patriarchy existing or institutional racism.

I think I've been pretty clear on stating that people have an inability to prove things they state they can prove.

@steveo, I'm with you here. The statistics that have been quoted - pain medication for black children, men dying earlier than women simply cannot, when taken as pure statistics, prove racism or matricarchism exist. All they can conclude is that some sort of phenomenon has been observed. It's up to other disciplines to discover the sociological or physiological, or anthropological reason that drives the statistic to exist.

One of the hypothesis behind the racial difference in pain management is, of course, racism. You've howled to the moon that pure statistics cannot prove that the difference in prescribing is driven by racism. As I said, I agree with you. However, the flip side is also true. The blunt statistics cannot be used to disprove racism, either. The 'extreme leftists' you so quiver at may in fact be expressing unsubstantiated opinion. But, so are you.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 04:18:59 PM
The 'extreme leftists' you so quiver at may in fact be expressing unsubstantiated opinion. But, so are you.

Exactly. The difference is that I aware of this. I accept I have an opinion and I don't try to dress it up as a proven theory and that anyone who disagrees with me is insert a derogatory term.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on March 05, 2019, 04:26:46 PM
The 'extreme leftists' you so quiver at may in fact be expressing unsubstantiated opinion. But, so are you.

Exactly. The difference is that I aware of this. I accept I have an opinion and I don't try to dress it up as a proven theory and that anyone who disagrees with me is insert a derogatory term.

Then why are you so adamant that institutionalized racism and patriarchy don't exist? The farthest we can get is that some people have an unsubstantiated theory that <insert social phenomenon> stems from racism/patriarchy, and that you have the equally unsubstantiated theory that <social phenomenon> does not stem from racism/patriarchy.

edit: syntax
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 04:47:42 PM
The 'extreme leftists' you so quiver at may in fact be expressing unsubstantiated opinion. But, so are you.

Exactly. The difference is that I aware of this. I accept I have an opinion and I don't try to dress it up as a proven theory and that anyone who disagrees with me is insert a derogatory term.

Then why are you so adamant that institutionalized racism and patriarchy don't exist? The farthest we can get is that some people have an unsubstantiated theory that <insert social phenomenon> stems from racism/patriarchy, and that you have the equally unsubstantiated theory that <social phenomenon> does not stem from racism/patriarchy.

edit: syntax

It's not as simple as what you are implying. Yet again you guys attack a viewpoint that I haven't expressed. I can see the complexity of an issue and I'm also not sure about what to do about various issues.

I don't see institutionalized racism within society today much if at all. I see affirmative action which is positive discrimination. I accept that this occurs to try and help people that are in various demographics that currently are not represented as much within various areas of society.

I also don't see much if any racism within society.

That doesn't mean that there wasn't institutionalised racism or whatever in the past in society. It also doesn't mean that nothing should be done plus there are things being done. It also doesn't mean that there are pockets of racists or institutions that discriminate against people (but not in the positive fashion).

I think that given time a lot of the statistical studies that purport that there are differences in society will change to be more equitable but I doubt we will ever have a completely equitable society. The point being that maybe we've done so much to improve the situation (you can call this the patriarchy if you want too) that if people are just patient the world will move into a state where people don't keep going on about race or gender or sexuality and it becomes basically a non-issue.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: MasterStache on March 05, 2019, 04:54:16 PM
You have to remember that the "center" in the US looks kinda right wing to most of the rest of the world.

Maybe but geez the left looks pretty dysfunctional. I've never experienced such poor reasoning ability coupled with such over the top dramatics when it comes to personally attacking people. I'm serious as well.

Do you even realize that you continually attack people by calling them dysfunctional, regularly referring to them as extreme, insinuating that they are ignorant, etc. etc.?

I am just asking because there sure seems to be a lot of double standards on your part. Why not just stick to debating what you disagree with? Reading through the thread I get the impression you are so fed up and just wanting to go off on everyone.

This is just so over the top.

I am frustrated though. I call people extremist leftists because I consider myself on the left. There was push back on this point and I stated I've always voted for the left and these theories are far beyond my vision of the left. I stand by this comment but I'm happy to use another term. As for insinuating they are ignorant I think I've been pretty clear on stating that people have an inability to prove things they state they can prove. I'll also call the way a bunch of people debate on here dysfunctional.

For the record I have been attacked left, right and centre and yet you don't seem to comment on that.

It's over the top yet you proceed to explain why you posited all of it? Ummm, ok.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: steveo on March 05, 2019, 04:55:21 PM
You have to remember that the "center" in the US looks kinda right wing to most of the rest of the world.

Maybe but geez the left looks pretty dysfunctional. I've never experienced such poor reasoning ability coupled with such over the top dramatics when it comes to personally attacking people. I'm serious as well.

Do you even realize that you continually attack people by calling them dysfunctional, regularly referring to them as extreme, insinuating that they are ignorant, etc. etc.?

I am just asking because there sure seems to be a lot of double standards on your part. Why not just stick to debating what you disagree with? Reading through the thread I get the impression you are so fed up and just wanting to go off on everyone.

This is just so over the top.

I am frustrated though. I call people extremist leftists because I consider myself on the left. There was push back on this point and I stated I've always voted for the left and these theories are far beyond my vision of the left. I stand by this comment but I'm happy to use another term. As for insinuating they are ignorant I think I've been pretty clear on stating that people have an inability to prove things they state they can prove. I'll also call the way a bunch of people debate on here dysfunctional.

For the record I have been attacked left, right and centre and yet you don't seem to comment on that.

It's over the top yet you proceed to explain why you posited all of it? Ummm, ok.

You are right. I should probably not have bothered responding to you because you clearly weren't discussing anything in good faith. I get it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: Sailor Sam on March 05, 2019, 04:58:01 PM
The 'extreme leftists' you so quiver at may in fact be expressing unsubstantiated opinion. But, so are you.

Exactly. The difference is that I aware of this. I accept I have an opinion and I don't try to dress it up as a proven theory and that anyone who disagrees with me is insert a derogatory term.

Then why are you so adamant that institutionalized racism and patriarchy don't exist? The farthest we can get is that some people have an unsubstantiated theory that <insert social phenomenon> stems from racism/patriarchy, and that you have the equally unsubstantiated theory that <social phenomenon> does not stem from racism/patriarchy.

edit: syntax

It's not as simple as what you are implying. Yet again you guys attack a viewpoint that I haven't expressed. I can see the complexity of an issue and I'm also not sure about what to do about various issues.

I'm singular (unless I've been uninformed about my assimilation into the Borg, which given the Borg would be quite surprising), I didn't attack you, and I'm discoursing at a pretty high level. I've pointed out an interesting fact about your statistics argument, and I'd like to discuss it.
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: sherr on March 05, 2019, 05:23:09 PM
The same [Republican Senator introduced] with massive Criminal Justice Reform that was actually passed.  All the talk of this racist administration, while they were passing massive criminal justice reform which was targeted at helping minority communities and unjust sentencing.

Okay. I mean I agree, yes it's great that this passed. Let's not forget however that this was an extremely bipartisan bill, passing 87-12 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/s271) in the Senate (and all 12 "NOs" were R) and 358-36 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h448) in the House (and all 36 "NOs" were R).

Let's also not forget that Trump:
A) Needs every bit of good PR he can get.
B) Would have obviously been overridden if he had vetoed it.

I think the point that we can all look at the one or two good things that have happened is a valid one, but it's not like this is incredibly strong evidence that Trump is not a racist. It's not like Trump was the driver behind this reform, people had been trying to get it done since 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_Reform_and_Corrections_Act).
Title: Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
Post by: bacchi on March 05, 2019, 05:38:06 PM
I'm also a libertarian and I've always wondered why there are so few of us. It seems natural to me to take a philosophy of "let people do what they like but also let them pay for all their own mistakes/benefit from all their good decisions". I don't really understand why others have so much empathy and compassion that they want to rescue people from the consequences of their own bad life choices.

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

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

It'