[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Baffle2:

Eacaraxe:
Now, before I move into my next sub-chapter, let's have ourselves a pop quiz.

[etc]

Oh no, we don't know which weapon for killing a person is which. How will we ever decide which one to ban?! Just ban all of them you dunce!

Or, alternatively, don't ban guns based on what a picture of them looks like, list features to restrict. In Australia, it varies by state a bit, but a semi-auto centrefire rifle is Cat D, no matter what type of stock it has or its colour.

Not the damned assault weapon list, though, and not a list of guns restricted by name, or containing parts made by named manufacturers. That's hopeless.

Thaluikhain:
Or, alternatively, don't ban guns based on what a picture of them looks like, list features to restrict. In Australia, it varies by state a bit, but a semi-auto centrefire rifle is Cat D, no matter what type of stock it has or its colour.

Not the damned assault weapon list, though, and not a list of guns restricted by name, or containing parts made by named manufacturers. That's hopeless.

Indeed. One of the issues with the TEC-9 in particular was the state of California kept going after it based on name and cosmetics, which meant Intratec simply redesigned and rebranded without ever having to solve the pistol's core problem: the capability of any idiot with a tool kit and a tiny bit of expertise to modify it to fire automatically. Entire time, it was a gangbanger favorite precisely for that reason, not the dumbass plastic goobers and doodads. Then a grandfathered TEC-DC9 got itself used in Columbine.

Leg End:

Saelune:
You keep ignoring the things I actually want you to respond to. I really want to figure out where your line is for Trump.

I'd like to figure that out too, girl. There's only so much rope I can give a guy, and I'm left to wonder if I've hit the Lewis Black point yet. I'll let you know when I figure it out.

Well, I will believe it when I see it...but I do hope to see it.

Thaluikhain:

Or, alternatively, don't ban guns based on what a picture of them looks like, list features to restrict. In Australia, it varies by state a bit, but a semi-auto centrefire rifle is Cat D, no matter what type of stock it has or its colour.

Not the damned assault weapon list, though, and not a list of guns restricted by name, or containing parts made by named manufacturers. That's hopeless.

That's a fine system, as long as the first item on the list is 'Is this a gun? If so, you can't have it'. So you'd be allowed, like, a crossbow or something, but definitely not a gun.

Leg End:
You're finding what isn't actually there, my man. I specifically was pointing out how gun owners tend to be a wide spectrum of people and opinions on ownership. Is the NRA stupid? On quite a few levels, yes. I'm edging pretty close on them largely being in it for money and shilling these days and not doing enough as they should(and completely ignoring some things, or fucking endorsing gun control measures), but they can be useful. This is largely referring to organizational heads, because the membership is all over the place. Some people blindly support them and exactly down the line they tread, others do it because they think the American Left is absolutely fucknuts on restrictions, others do it because they are the most well-known gun rights group and do do heavy lifting, so backing them is smart for them in that context. If I were to give them any money, it'd be somewhere on that last one.

I didn't touch on them because I really don't care about them. As for the rest, you do you my dude. Enjoy your gun when you get it, have fun shooting, and I hope you need never use it in a situation where it's not for fun and practice.

I was being critical of you for being overly concerned about the government and feeling the need to have a gun. That is a standard NRA talking point until Trump became president and their talking points switched to "kill filthy Democrats who don't love our beloved government," and it'll be their talking points again when a Democrat is president again. Not all NRA members think that? Well they're still part of an organization that readily uses the rhetoric, and actions speak louder than words as far as I'm concerned.

TL;DR You and the heads of the NRA seem to be on the same page, and whatever grievances other members have with the NRA, they aren't enough for them to speak up about it. So they're effectively on board with current NRA rhetoric. They got a problem with that? Then maybe they should break away from the crazies who have had leaders that say all Democrats should be shot.

erttheking:

I was being critical of you for being overly concerned about the government and feeling the need to have a gun. That is a standard NRA talking point until Trump became president and their talking points switched to "kill filthy Democrats who don't love our beloved government," and it'll be their talking points again when a Democrat is president again. Not all NRA members think that? Well they're still part of an organization that readily uses the rhetoric, and actions speak louder than words as far as I'm concerned.

TL;DR You and the heads of the NRA seem to be on the same page, and whatever grievances other members have with the NRA, they aren't enough for them to speak up about it. So they're effectively on board with current NRA rhetoric. They got a problem with that? Then maybe they should break away from the crazies who have had leaders that say all Democrats should be shot.

Excuse me, do you happen to have a source where the NRA says "kill filthy Democrats who don't love our beloved government." I'm not sure I can take your claims seriously as they are.

Baffle2:
That's a fine system, as long as the first item on the list is 'Is this a gun? If so, you can't have it'. So you'd be allowed, like, a crossbow or something, but definitely not a gun.

Oddly enough, in most of Australia, crossbows are even more heavily restricted than guns.

Thaluikhain:

Oddly enough, in most of Australia, crossbows are even more heavily restricted than guns.

Okay, you guys can have catapults. And lassos for rounding up spiders.

tstorm823:

erttheking:

I was being critical of you for being overly concerned about the government and feeling the need to have a gun. That is a standard NRA talking point until Trump became president and their talking points switched to "kill filthy Democrats who don't love our beloved government," and it'll be their talking points again when a Democrat is president again. Not all NRA members think that? Well they're still part of an organization that readily uses the rhetoric, and actions speak louder than words as far as I'm concerned.

TL;DR You and the heads of the NRA seem to be on the same page, and whatever grievances other members have with the NRA, they aren't enough for them to speak up about it. So they're effectively on board with current NRA rhetoric. They got a problem with that? Then maybe they should break away from the crazies who have had leaders that say all Democrats should be shot.

Excuse me, do you happen to have a source where the NRA says "kill filthy Democrats who don't love our beloved government." I'm not sure I can take your claims seriously as they are.

Note my specific wording was not that the NRA said that, but the NRA had leaders who said that.

And they did.

https://www.newsweek.com/nugent-democrats-coyotes-shot-876408

erttheking:

Note my specific wording was not that the NRA said that, but the NRA had leaders who said that.

And they did.

https://www.newsweek.com/nugent-democrats-coyotes-shot-876408

Ted Nugent is a crazy person, and that comment is pretty vile. I'd hazard a guess he meant shooting coyotes as a metaphor of some kind, but I don't actually know what the non-metaphorical equivalent is. I don't know what the political parallel would even be to keeping your gun ready to shoot coyotes, so if it isn't really vile, then at best it's marginally vile and really really stupid. But I think the whole quote undermines your point:

"Don't ask why. Just know that evil, dishonesty, and scam artists have always been around and that right now they're liberal, they're Democrat, they're RINOs, they're Hollywood, they're fake news, they're media, they're academia, and they're half of our government, at least," Nugent said according to conservative media watchdog Media Matters.

Nugent continued: "So come to that realization. There are rabid coyotes running around. You don't wait till you see one to go get your gun. Keep your gun handy, and every time you see one, you shoot one."

That's not someone telling people they should love the government so long as Republicans are in charge. That's a paranoid delusional saying there are people out to get you, but even he's saying it just happens to be Democrats, etc. at the moment. "Buy a gun or 4 because you can't trust the government" is pretty well baked into this rant.

tstorm823:

"Don't ask why. Just know that evil, dishonesty, and scam artists have always been around and that right now they're liberal, they're Democrat, they're RINOs, they're Hollywood, they're fake news, they're media, they're academia, and they're half of our government, at least," Nugent said according to conservative media watchdog Media Matters.

Nugent continued: "So come to that realization. There are rabid coyotes running around. You don't wait till you see one to go get your gun. Keep your gun handy, and every time you see one, you shoot one."

That's not someone telling people they should love the government so long as Republicans are in charge. That's a paranoid delusional saying there are people out to get you, but even he's saying it just happens to be Democrats, etc. at the moment. "Buy a gun or 4 because you can't trust the government" is pretty well baked into this rant.

Yes and no. He doesn't clearly say 'Republicans are the best, y'all', but the issue is obviously with the left being in government (as they were at the time). I'm not saying he hasn't[i] said the same about Republicans since they came into power, but [i]has he? (Genuinely don't know, and he's too bonkers for me to want to find out what other awful shit he's come out with.)

Leg End:
...Wait, Canada? Dude, you actually beat us in some regards when it comes to getting firearms, and I mean that from the perspective of someone for ease of access. That I am aware of, you guys still have online buying and mail delivery of guns, which is pretty much not a thing here. To put it as simply as possible, we have to have online stores send firearms to specific license holders to do a legal transfer of the gun to us. I wish I could have guns mailed straight to my door to avoid social anxiety and transfer fees.

I did a quickie look into it the other day, and you still need to complete a more rigorous background check (and in quebec, get put on a gun owner list), pass a safety test to get your basic licence, taker further tests for restricted guns (anything more than a bolt-action rifle, etc), plus possession/acquisition/transport licenses, etc. And I think we have restrictions on the amount of bullets per mag, although the conservatives may or may not have axed those in the last decade, I forget.

Sooo...Either this small set of regulations that present additional barriers is already enough to help a ton, or people in the US are inherently more violent and evil than we are or something. *shrug*

Which, you know, I think is unlikely because we also basically attempted a genocide of First Nations people up here in past (and still treat them like shit) so I don't think we're THAT many orders of magnitude more "good" or pure than you guys. We're just more polite.

But yeah, not getting back into this discussion again, as I don't think either of us will make headway.

Try going shooting sometime. It's a lot less of a hassle than other places, and you might just enjoy it.

Eh, thanks but no thanks.

Paintball was a ton of fun the one time I did it and I have no interest in going any more "real" than that. That and while seeing what a shotgun would be like to shoot on a shooting range one time might be fun...I'd likely shatter my spindly little noodle arms from the recoil on top of if feeling too "real" and possibly ruining my love of shotties in gaming.

Gergar12:

Trump had a better foreign policy [...]

Well, in that he hasn't launched any new pointless wars (yet). He's still exacerbated the existing ones, and almost sparked off military confrontations through sheer grandstanding.

Recall his idea to invade South America?

tstorm823:

erttheking:

Note my specific wording was not that the NRA said that, but the NRA had leaders who said that.

And they did.

https://www.newsweek.com/nugent-democrats-coyotes-shot-876408

Ted Nugent is a crazy person, and that comment is pretty vile. I'd hazard a guess he meant shooting coyotes as a metaphor of some kind, but I don't actually know what the non-metaphorical equivalent is. I don't know what the political parallel would even be to keeping your gun ready to shoot coyotes, so if it isn't really vile, then at best it's marginally vile and really really stupid. But I think the whole quote undermines your point:

"Don't ask why. Just know that evil, dishonesty, and scam artists have always been around and that right now they're liberal, they're Democrat, they're RINOs, they're Hollywood, they're fake news, they're media, they're academia, and they're half of our government, at least," Nugent said according to conservative media watchdog Media Matters.

Nugent continued: "So come to that realization. There are rabid coyotes running around. You don't wait till you see one to go get your gun. Keep your gun handy, and every time you see one, you shoot one."

That's not someone telling people they should love the government so long as Republicans are in charge. That's a paranoid delusional saying there are people out to get you, but even he's saying it just happens to be Democrats, etc. at the moment. "Buy a gun or 4 because you can't trust the government" is pretty well baked into this rant.

A crazy person on the board of directors for the biggest gun lobby in America with 5 million people. 5 million people who want to reap the benefits of being part of the NRA but want to duck being associated with the crazy shit it does, and in my book, you don't get to cherry-pick like that. If you're an NRA member and you say nothing about this, that's the same as supporting it.

Can I ask you a question? Does every Republican get issued a Republican to normal person speech dictionary? Because every time a Republican comes out and says something horrible I get GOP voters telling me that he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently utterly everything they talk about is a metaphor. That's not telling people to love the government as long as Republicans are in charge? You're technically right, it's "only" about him spewing bile and hatred about massacring everything even slightly left-leaning. "It just happens to be Democrat" don't insult my intelligence. The only metaphor here is that all democrats = coyotes. Ain't no deeper metaphor than that, and I'd appreciate it if right-leaning Americans would stop trying to pull doublethink on me whenever a prominent right-leaning figure says something shitty.

The most insulting thing about the Trump presidency is people constantly trying to gaslight me, saying that the public things people say aren't what they actually say because they want to twist it into the most ideal version of it. Duck all responsibility of being associated with fucking horrible people.

erttheking:

Can I ask you a question? Does every Republican get issued a Republican to normal person speech dictionary? Because every time a Republican comes out and says something horrible I get GOP voters telling me that he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently utterly everything they talk about is a metaphor. That's not telling people to love the government as long as Republicans are in charge? You're technically right, it's "only" about him spewing bile and hatred about massacring everything even slightly left-leaning. "It just happens to be Democrat" don't insult my intelligence. The only metaphor here is that all democrats = coyotes. Ain't no deeper metaphor than that, and I'd appreciate it if right-leaning Americans would stop trying to pull doublethink on me whenever a prominent right-leaning figure says something shitty.

The most insulting thing about the Trump presidency is people constantly trying to gaslight me, saying that the public things people say aren't what they actually say because they want to twist it into the most ideal version of it. Duck all responsibility of being associated with fucking horrible people.

I don't think you understand the idea of a different perspectives. Right-leaning Americans aren't trying to deceive you, they're trying to explain that something you don't like isn't evil. If you had different circumstances in your own life, you'd have a different perspective, but we all only have one life to live, so you should at least listen to those with a different perspective without assuming they're trying to deceive you.

The people you think are horrible don't think themselves horrible. Even if they are horrible, they don't think that of themselves. Ted Nugent doesn't think that statement makes him a monster. Donald Trump doesn't think his statements make him a monster. If you refuse to acknowledge a perspective that makes them not monstrous, you're refusing to understand the truth. For your disagreement with someone to have any value, you need to be disagreeing with their actual perspective. You can't just say "sounds to me like that's evil, so they're evil." The vast majority of the time something sounds evil to you, it's because you don't understand them. Very few things are said with the purpose of being evil.

And it isn't a right wing thing to explain people's statements. You just end up getting explanations more often for things you don't understand, because if you did understand, there'd be no need to explain. I don't share your experience of having people justify Republicans to me. Why would they, I understand the Republican perspective. I get the opposite, people justifying the Democratic perspective to me. From my perspective, Bernie Sanders sounds like insane rambling completely disjointed from reality. If a Democrat tries to justify those statements, I don't assume they're trying to trick me into liking Bernie more. They're trying to explain Bernie to me because they have a perspective closer to him than I do and can quite probably offer me insight.

Final point: even if people lie to you, that doesn't make it gaslighting. Gaslighting is making someone question their sanity. People disagreeing with you are trying to make you question your perspective. These are not the same thing. If anything is going to make you question your sanity, it's going to be trying to live in a world where you think half the people are evil and nearly everyone goes along with it as though it's just polite disagreements.

tstorm823:

erttheking:

Can I ask you a question? Does every Republican get issued a Republican to normal person speech dictionary? Because every time a Republican comes out and says something horrible I get GOP voters telling me that he didn't actually mean what he said and apparently utterly everything they talk about is a metaphor. That's not telling people to love the government as long as Republicans are in charge? You're technically right, it's "only" about him spewing bile and hatred about massacring everything even slightly left-leaning. "It just happens to be Democrat" don't insult my intelligence. The only metaphor here is that all democrats = coyotes. Ain't no deeper metaphor than that, and I'd appreciate it if right-leaning Americans would stop trying to pull doublethink on me whenever a prominent right-leaning figure says something shitty.

The most insulting thing about the Trump presidency is people constantly trying to gaslight me, saying that the public things people say aren't what they actually say because they want to twist it into the most ideal version of it. Duck all responsibility of being associated with fucking horrible people.

I don't think you understand the idea of a different perspectives. Right-leaning Americans aren't trying to deceive you, they're trying to explain that something you don't like isn't evil. If you had different circumstances in your own life, you'd have a different perspective, but we all only have one life to live, so you should at least listen to those with a different perspective without assuming they're trying to deceive you.

Republicans have been proven to lie constantly, this is just a fact now. Also, you would do well to listen to your own advice here with that second half.

The people you think are horrible don't think themselves horrible. Even if they are horrible, they don't think that of themselves.

You said it, not me. But this is what makes arguing on here so frustrating often, cause I am not allowed to point this out to people. When they defend undefendable things, this is the problem.

Ted Nugent doesn't think that statement makes him a monster. Donald Trump doesn't think his statements make him a monster. If you refuse to acknowledge a perspective that makes them not monstrous, you're refusing to understand the truth. For your disagreement with someone to have any value, you need to be disagreeing with their actual perspective. You can't just say "sounds to me like that's evil, so they're evil." The vast majority of the time something sounds evil to you, it's because you don't understand them. Very few things are said with the purpose of being evil.

And it isn't a right wing thing to explain people's statements. You just end up getting explanations more often for things you don't understand, because if you did understand, there'd be no need to explain. I don't share your experience of having people justify Republicans to me. Why would they, I understand the Republican perspective. I get the opposite, people justifying the Democratic perspective to me. From my perspective, Bernie Sanders sounds like insane rambling completely disjointed from reality. If a Democrat tries to justify those statements, I don't assume they're trying to trick me into liking Bernie more. They're trying to explain Bernie to me because they have a perspective closer to him than I do and can quite probably offer me insight.

Final point: even if people lie to you, that doesn't make it gaslighting. Gaslighting is making someone question their sanity. People disagreeing with you are trying to make you question your perspective. These are not the same thing. If anything is going to make you question your sanity, it's going to be trying to live in a world where you think half the people are evil and nearly everyone goes along with it as though it's just polite disagreements.

When people lie, they are trying to make you believe something other than the truth. That is a problem, period. We currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable. It is not.

tstorm823:

I don't think you understand the idea of a different perspectives. Right-leaning Americans aren't trying to deceive you, they're trying to explain that something you don't like isn't evil. If you had different circumstances in your own life, you'd have a different perspective, but we all only have one life to live, so you should at least listen to those with a different perspective without assuming they're trying to deceive you.

The people you think are horrible don't think themselves horrible. Even if they are horrible, they don't think that of themselves. Ted Nugent doesn't think that statement makes him a monster. Donald Trump doesn't think his statements make him a monster. If you refuse to acknowledge a perspective that makes them not monstrous, you're refusing to understand the truth. For your disagreement with someone to have any value, you need to be disagreeing with their actual perspective. You can't just say "sounds to me like that's evil, so they're evil." The vast majority of the time something sounds evil to you, it's because you don't understand them. Very few things are said with the purpose of being evil.

And it isn't a right wing thing to explain people's statements. You just end up getting explanations more often for things you don't understand, because if you did understand, there'd be no need to explain. I don't share your experience of having people justify Republicans to me. Why would they, I understand the Republican perspective. I get the opposite, people justifying the Democratic perspective to me. From my perspective, Bernie Sanders sounds like insane rambling completely disjointed from reality. If a Democrat tries to justify those statements, I don't assume they're trying to trick me into liking Bernie more. They're trying to explain Bernie to me because they have a perspective closer to him than I do and can quite probably offer me insight.

Final point: even if people lie to you, that doesn't make it gaslighting. Gaslighting is making someone question their sanity. People disagreeing with you are trying to make you question your perspective. These are not the same thing. If anything is going to make you question your sanity, it's going to be trying to live in a world where you think half the people are evil and nearly everyone goes along with it as though it's just polite disagreements.

Always funny how the aforementioned different perspectives always seem to resolve GOP leaning figures of all responsibility, isn't it? Yes I'm aware that you're trying to offer me an alternate perspective. It's just that that perspective is trending a bit too much towards "the right does nothing wrong, ever" for my taste. Talk all about perspectives, at least a Democrat won't deny that things actually happen. You can directly quote right leaning figures and people will look you in the face and say "oh he didn't say that" or try to spin some alternative meaning out of thin air (like you did.) And isn't it so funny when the "explinations" for what they're saying comes off as utterly detached from the context and language they used. It's almost like it's not entirely honest in nature.

Then mission accomplished because I've been questioning my sanity since 2016. I feel like I'm in a room with four lights on and I keep getting told that there are five lights. That's what happens when you have a barely cognitive manchild for president and you live with family who do nothing but sing his praises, it fucks with your perception of reality. Not helped when you point out that, as a Democrat, people are calling for your death, and instead of addressing it I get people ducking responsibility by saying it's just a metaphor. A metaphor they don't understand but they're still going to claim it's a metaphor.

Baffle2:

Thaluikhain:

Oddly enough, in most of Australia, crossbows are even more heavily restricted than guns.

Okay, you guys can have catapults. And lassos for rounding up spiders.

Why do you think we lost the Emu War

trunkage:

Why do you think we lost the Emu War

Because fences hadn't been invented yet? (I had to look up what the Emu War was, and it turns out you really did just need a big fence.)

An alternative for those farmers plagued by animals raiders: just grow poisonous crops.

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

5 deaths, 6 injuries, and a revolution. This is the world the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment lived in. By their standards, we should be having multiple revolutions a day, but nope.

2nd Amendment people, your defense is bullshit.

tstorm823:

Final point: even if people lie to you, that doesn't make it gaslighting. Gaslighting is making someone question their sanity. People disagreeing with you are trying to make you question your perspective. These are not the same thing. If anything is going to make you question your sanity, it's going to be trying to live in a world where you think half the people are evil and nearly everyone goes along with it as though it's just polite disagreements.

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"

The right wing has turned gaslighting into a fucking slogan then.

tstorm823:
If you had different circumstances in your own life, you'd have a different perspective, but we all only have one life to live, so you should at least listen to those with a different perspective without assuming they're trying to deceive you.

Hey there, someone who tries to listen to different perspectives here.

It's something I do quite often. Either asking "Am I the bad guy here?" or "Why does this person think the way they do?". It keeps my moral compass on the straight and narrow, and it helps me figure out what people might actually need. It's also valuable in writing, as everyone is the hero of their own story, and things are often very nuanced. Using that can often lead to wildly better stories than "black and white morality" based ones.

Heck, even if I disagreed with Leg End earlier in the thread, I understood his perspective and chose not to argue further with him about it, because I understand where he's coming from, even if my experiences lead me to a completely different conclusion.

...But here's the thing. What makes the "You should listen to our perspective!" cries from the right gaslighting is one simple fact.

For them, it's a one way street.

I almost never ever see a right winger try to understand the more leftist perspective. I almost never see them try to compromise in our direction. The massively overwhelming amount of the time, it's always them asking us to compromise to their positions.

I've tried debating people on this site and in person a heck of a lot, and it's exceedingly rare to get a "Huh, I'll think more about that" from people with a more right wing perspective. I've tried several times to ask "What about X's perspective" to someone who thinks women rule everything and got bupkiss every time, for example.

For a more public example, look at the Affordable Care Act.

Obama had the votes to get a single payer system (assuming he played hardball with the Blue Dog Dems). Did he shove it through? No. He tried to compromise with the GOP. Here's how that went.

Obama: Hey, how about we compromise to a Government Option?
GOP: NEVER!
Obama: ...Ok then...How about we implement the Individual Mandate system proposed by the right wing heritage foundation, and pushed for already by Mitt Romney?
GOP: NO! NEVER!
Obama: ...But it's your own idea.
GOP: NO! NEVERRR!
Obama: Fine, I'll just push your own idea through, and hopefully the fever will break.
GOP: *Tries to repeal Obamacare like 50 some-odd times*

So yeah. It's unfair to have this one way street of sympathy and compromise. It's gotta be at least SOMEWHAT mutual.

The people you think are horrible don't think themselves horrible. Even if they are horrible, they don't think that of themselves. Ted Nugent doesn't think that statement makes him a monster. Donald Trump doesn't think his statements make him a monster. If you refuse to acknowledge a perspective that makes them not monstrous, you're refusing to understand the truth. For your disagreement with someone to have any value, you need to be disagreeing with their actual perspective. You can't just say "sounds to me like that's evil, so they're evil." The vast majority of the time something sounds evil to you, it's because you don't understand them. Very few things are said with the purpose of being evil.

This is something I always try to keep in mind, actually.

When I see the elected GOP fighting against making poor people not die of preventable medical issues, I say they're evil, not because they sound evil, but because their positions are corrupt and based in greed and they cause people to die and these people KNOW IT and don't care.

When I see Fox pushing the narrative that "Ermagerd, we're all going to be replaced, the democrats literally have a plan to replace all white people with unamerican mexicans!!!" I say they're bad people because the position itself is factually wrong, and bigoted.

When I see evangelicals screaming about how LGBT people are destroying the moral fabric of the nation, I say they're bad people because LGBT people provably cause no harm and are just trying to live their lives happy and peacefully, and opposing that is either out of pure bigotry, or just being misinformed and brainwashed by religious nuts.

I can usually understand they they hold their positions (Corruption in the first case, and "fear of becoming a minority which they often mistreat and they are afraid of that happening to them" in the second), but that doesn't change the fact that I think positions like this are bad positions.

It's also why I don't hate the people in depressed factory towns who were swayed by trump's rhetoric on trade. Their position's not odious, just misinformed. I'm not going to hate someone who was lied to and believed it.

It's why as much as I despise organized religion, I don't aggressively shove that in the face of believers. Even if I think the entire structure is dangerous and harmful, I'm not going to tell a person that the thing that gives them spiritual meaning is bad and force that on them (at least, as long as they're not actually using it to hurt anyone).

But I also have to take people at their word. If a right winger is making an obvious metaphor for violence against the left (or in Gavin Mcinnes case, actively promoting violence), then I'm going to take them at their word that they're bad people who want to hurt people they disagree with.

Final point: even if people lie to you, that doesn't make it gaslighting. Gaslighting is making someone question their sanity. People disagreeing with you are trying to make you question your perspective. These are not the same thing. If anything is going to make you question your sanity, it's going to be trying to live in a world where you think half the people are evil and nearly everyone goes along with it as though it's just polite disagreements.

And this is where my two points coincide with this.

1) Conservatives often lie to us, using it as any other tool to try to make their position look correct, and claim anything that invalidates it is "biased" or "fake news".

2) The right wing consistently demands we compromise to them, and understand their perspective, and they refuse to to the same for us.

3) A lot of their positions are just plain wrong and harmful.

Given that...Yeah, it's kind of gaslighting. If someone has a harmful position, lies to you that it's actually not harmful, then is angry that you aren't sympathizing with and trying to understand their position, AND then they never try to understand your perspective...If that's not gaslighting, that's dangerously close, and still harmful.

Like...Conservatives are the ones who:

- Wanted to keep homosexuality illegal and beat/shock the gayness out of people.
- Were in favor of continuing segregation.
- Think it's acceptable that Insulin that costs 30 bucks in Canada costs 300 dollars in the US despite it costing 6 bucks to make in both countries.
- Think it's wrong to give people a wage they can live on, no matter what full time job they have.

And many other positions like this.

Now in the first two cases, we mostly won. But did the left win by appealing to their sympathy and asking them to understand our perspective from the goodness of their hearts?

No. We didn't.

The left won those battles by aggressively arguing and dragging the conservatives kicking and screaming to the correct position.

In the first case, until people on the right started feeling like it was ok to come out as gay to their conservative families, who then turned to the right side of the issue because now it's personally relevant to them.

In the second case, it was until basically everyone agreed that deliberately keeping blacks and white separate and trying to keep them in lower class districts and schools was kind of a dick move.

And you know what? There are conservatives STILL railing against those positions.

So how will we win fight number 3?

By just going "oh please, conservatives! Please please sympathize with the poor family that can't afford to buy lifesaving medication!" and hoping they come around?

Or by aggressively pushing for it until it happens and then watch as conservatives who ARE affected by it go "Holy shit this new position helps me so much!" and the position becomes accepted by the right, who will likely claim credit for it in the long run (like some conservatives try to do with Martin Luther King).

My money's on option B.

Not to mention, how do you debate and sympathize with people who argue that you are literally the spawn of satan, as the LGBT haters do? How can you expect people to keep repeatedly justifying their (harmless, might I add) very existence when faced with people who refuse to consider their perspective, and who being harmed as a result?

So yeah, I will continue to try to understand the perspective of people I disagree with. But I'm going to keep disagreeing with the heck out of people who hold positions that, even after I try to empathize, turn out to be harmful.

I may disagree with you, and fight your positions and tell you you're wrong and that your positions are harmful, but unless you yourself are actively and willfully trying to hurt people, I'm not going to say you're a bad person. Just misinformed.

And this is WITHOUT attacking the low-hanging fruit, just so I can try to make a more compelling argument.

From my perspective, Bernie Sanders sounds like insane rambling completely disjointed from reality.

There is no way to say this without it sounding gas-light-y, but...

You know most of his positions are centrist fare almost everywhere else in the civilized world, right?

So...It's REALLY hard to believe that the entire rest of the civilized world is insane and completely disjointed from reality.

Saelune:
When people lie, they are trying to make you believe something other than the truth. That is a problem, period. We currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable. It is not.

You, personally, spend an outrageous amount of your time on this website trying to get people to think things that aren't true. I don't know if you recognize the amount you say that isn't true, but you say an absurd amount of untrue things all the time constantly. The sentence "we currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable" is undeniably false. I don't think that makes you dishonest. For the most part, I admire your forwardness and honesty. But your honest opinions aren't truth. Far from it.

aegix drakan:

From my perspective, Bernie Sanders sounds like insane rambling completely disjointed from reality.

There is no way to say this without it sounding gas-light-y, but...

You know most of his positions are centrist fare almost everywhere else in the civilized world, right?

So...It's REALLY hard to believe that the entire rest of the civilized world is insane and completely disjointed from reality.

I know you wrote a lot, but the truth is that I believe almost every conservative position you just tried to express is an unintentional strawman, and your understanding of conservatism as a whole is super misguided. But if I sit here and pick apart your view of conservatives, we'd be right back to "justify everything with lies gaslighting us!" nonsense. Instead, I want to focus on this Bernie bit. When you say "the civilized world", I take it to mean essentially Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Canada, most of Europe, and possibly a handful of countries I'm not thinking of. To make it simple, lets talk about Europe. Bernie vs Europe.

On economic policy:

Highest marginal income tax in Europe is about 60%, Bernie wants 90%.
The most egalitarian European nations have a corporate tax in line with the Trump Tax cuts, Bernie wants that repealed.
Europe formed the EU, largely an ambitious free-trade project, Bernie wants protectionist policies to weaken corporations.
Bernie and Europe are pretty close on labor.

On social policy:

Bernie is for LGBT rights, Europe is mixed in its opinions.
Bernie is for pot legalization, Europe is mixed in its opinions.
Bernie is for way more lenient abortion laws than Europe.

And there's a lot of overlap as far as education and healthcare. But like, there are places where Bernie is way left of Europe. Where is he right of Europe? Where does Bernie become "centrist fare"? Any place that Europe is further left than the US, Bernie seems to take the further position. Any place the US is further left than Europe, Bernie still seems to take the further position. How does that put him in the center of anywhere?

You're spot on that it sounds gas-lighty. I really don't get the "America is uber-right wing, Europe is so much more left" line. Sure, there's healthcare, but the US has a single-payer system for the poor, disabled, and elderly, it's really not that far off the hybrid public/private systems the rest of the world has. There's education, but we have public colleges and universities with state grants and need based aid, you can have your tuition paid for you in the US. I've been told organized labor is more powerful in Europe specifically. Ok, that's some things. But America's social spending is near the top, our taxes are close to the most progressive, our public investment in science and technology is immense, our laws are typically more socially permissive than elsewhere, and we don't, you know, still have a monarchy in place. I know the US is different than other countries, but this oft repeated idea that it's way right of "the civilized world" seems to me like something up for reasonable debate at least. But it just gets stated as a fact all over the place. Like gaslighting. But I don't think you're trying to gaslight me. We just disagree.

tstorm823:

Saelune:
When people lie, they are trying to make you believe something other than the truth. That is a problem, period. We currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable. It is not.

You, personally, spend an outrageous amount of your time on this website trying to get people to think things that aren't true. I don't know if you recognize the amount you say that isn't true, but you say an absurd amount of untrue things all the time constantly. The sentence "we currently live in a world where people argue that torturing children to death is totally acceptable" is undeniably false. I don't think that makes you dishonest. For the most part, I admire your forwardness and honesty. But your honest opinions aren't truth. Far from it.

Citation needed.

tstorm823:

I know you wrote a lot, but the truth is that I believe almost every conservative position you just tried to express is an unintentional strawman, and your understanding of conservatism as a whole is super misguided.

Oh please tell me more about how conservatives are so pro-LGBT, anti-racism, pro-raising minimum wage, and anti-bullshit medicine.

erttheking:

tstorm823:

I know you wrote a lot, but the truth is that I believe almost every conservative position you just tried to express is an unintentional strawman, and your understanding of conservatism as a whole is super misguided.

Oh please tell me more about how conservatives are so pro-LGBT, anti-racism, pro-raising minimum wage, and anti-bullshit medicine.

Well, if you ignore the macro policy decisions and focus on just this tiny micro policy decision here under this nearly hidden provision you will see that this latest Republican bill is actually promoting tax cuts that will positively effect 20% of homosexual or black households.

Don't dwell on how it will negatively effect 80% of the other side of the spectrum.

Why am I not surprised by the way this went?

tstorm823:

I know you wrote a lot, but the truth is that I believe almost every conservative position you just tried to express is an unintentional strawman, and your understanding of conservatism as a whole is super misguided.

Let me make some assumptions and you tell me if I'm right.

You were born into a conservative family, and many of your friend are conservative, and they're all lovely, wonderful, loving people who are not in any way racist, sexist, anti-gay, or any of that. They're just fiscally conservative, and that's all.

Is that near the mark?

Because my suspicion is, if most conservatives you know are all good people (or appear to be at least), then to you, the idea that the great big base that supports the GOP are often full of people who support nasty, terrible things must completely go against your perceived reality.

"All the conservatives I know are wonderful people, so they must be like MOST conservatives. So most conservatives mustn't be the kind of people who liked segregation or thought gay people should be criminalized", basically.

Well, here's the thing...

We have receipts. We can see the votes cast by GOP lawmakers. We can dig up their speeches on youtube. We can see, verifiably, and for a fact that:

Conservative lawmakers:
- Opposed decriminalizing LGBT people and opposed letting them marry.
- Opposed de-segregation (although to be fair, some conservative so called liberal types like Biden also opposed it).
- Virulently opposed Obamacare even though it was literally a repurposed Heritage Foundation plan.
- Currently Oppose giving the poor a living wage or raising the minimum wage for a 40 hour workweek.
- Currently Oppose regulations to put price controls on rampant healthcare costs and oppose opening up true access to it. (But hey, at least trump kinda-sorta tried, even though the rest of his cabinet opposes it)
- Currently Oppose even mild gun reform like mandatory background checks in all cases.

This is without looking at the right wing media (Fox et al) who most of the GOP voter base consistently watches (verifiably so), who push extreme ideas like "the democrats want to replace you with immigrant voters who will vote for them" (LITERALLY every one of their hosts made an argument like that last week).

So yeah, all the conservatives you know may very well be truly good people who are just fiscally conservative and pro-business. I'm not going to say all, or even most conservative people are bad people. Obviously not.

But conservatives keep electing people who are in favor of harmful status quo issues, and oppose more liberating/helpful progress, and will turn a blind eye to the harm being done as long as the pro-business stuff gets done.

So you can tell me all day long how "Almost every conservative position you just tried to express is an unintentional strawman, and your understanding of conservatism as a whole is super misguided", but those are all things that we can verify and prove that conservative lawmakers value.

If I had the time, and I could be guaranteed you'd give it an honest listen, maybe I'd go and dredge up all the stats, and votes, and videos to back each and every one of those bullet points up.

But I doubt you'd listen, so I'd honestly rather spend my evening playing Fire Emblem than doing that.

So yeah, we do disagree. But you're disagreeing with a boatload of history that we can clearly see.

Saelune:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

5 deaths, 6 injuries, and a revolution. This is the world the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment lived in. By their standards, we should be having multiple revolutions a day, but nope.

2nd Amendment people, your defense is bullshit.

What is most ridiculous about that 2nd Amendment is using it as a defense only shows how ignorant those people are of it. Out of every single amendment (even the 18th, the one against alcohol that was repealed) the 2nd is easily the one among all of them that has completely lost all relevance. The second amendment came into existence for 2 reasons, 1. it was a time when people still regularly hunted their own food and thus a matter of survival for everybody to have a gun and 2. because the weapons that the average joe had to rebel against the government with were pretty much the same ones the government had to put down rebellions with. As such a rebellion actually had a chance in hell of being successful.

Look at the reality today. If they really wanted the United States Government could throw away every single one of our rights right this minute and there wouldn't be a thing the average joes could do about it, regardless of how many of them had guns or what kind they had access to. Any rebellions would be quickly and mercilessly crushed over and over again in a matter of hours, days at the most with the government's vastly superior military tech and infinitely more trained and experienced military. It would go something like this:

Aide: "Mr. President, it appears that New York City has decided to secede from the Union."
President: "Oh, another one? You know what to do, carpet bomb the city."
Aide: "Yes sir"
a few hours later
Aide: "Sir, New York City has tendered it's unconditional surrender."
President: "As expected.
Aide: "Naturally sir, I don't know what those idiots were thinking."
President: "They weren't. Now, on to more important business, this baby meat I just was served is a bit underdone. Go have the cook shot."
Aide: "Of course sir."

...and it would keep happening until the country got the message and was perfectly willing to bend over and take it in the rear. What's scary is while I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point, it really isn't by much. People are frighteningly ignorant of how easy it would be for the government to kill hundreds of thousands of people from half the country away with the push of a button or a single command without having any risk whatsoever to themselves.

If a rebellion were to succeed, it would be due to say 27% of the military rebelling against the other 73% with equivalent tech behind them, and what keeps any given president from taking over and declaring themselves king is the rest of the government that would stand to lose their own power if he did making sure he doesn't, a bunch of average joes with guns don't even begin to factor.

erttheking:

Oh please tell me more about how conservatives are so pro-LGBT, anti-racism, pro-raising minimum wage, and anti-bullshit medicine.

I assume you're referring to this:

Like...Conservatives are the ones who:

- Wanted to keep homosexuality illegal and beat/shock the gayness out of people.
- Were in favor of continuing segregation.
- Think it's acceptable that Insulin that costs 30 bucks in Canada costs 300 dollars in the US despite it costing 6 bucks to make in both countries.
- Think it's wrong to give people a wage they can live on, no matter what full time job they have.

That's just not an accurate block of text.

Gay conversion therapy is not now nor has it ever been a conservative practice. That's an artifact left over from the early progressive movement, when eugenics and aggressive psychotherapy were in vogue.

You can accurately say southern conservatives wanted to continue segregation. You can also say Northern conservatives were against it. That's just pointing out what the status quo of laws is at a given place and time. It's not honest to point to bad laws of the past and call supporting them conservatism while ignoring things like supporting freedom of speech also being conservative.

That bit about insulin isn't true. There is no conservative going "yeah, drugs should be super expensive here, that's great!" That's just not a thing. We have honest disagreement about the effect of a single-payer system on the cost of medicine. Our medical saves lives constantly, you have to appreciate a hesitation to completely overhaul that thing that's keeping us alive or a skepticism that handing over our medical freedom wholesale will somehow shrink the cost of goods and services overnight.

It's true, conservatives don't like minimum wage laws. Minimum wage is a stupid talking point. There is no right number to set it at. Indexed scales are basically ignored at the federal level because then you can't bring it again in 5 years for more political points. And of the ways you can try and keep people from being destitute, minimum wage laws are arguably some of the more regressive, as the burden of the law would be passed on to those who lose jobs that can no longer be supported (the poor) and those consumers who spend the most money proportionally at establishments with minimum wage earners (also the poor).

aegix drakan:
Why am I not surprised by the way this went?

For the record, I made almost the entirety of my post an opportunity for you to defend a Democratic Socialist, and you ignored it all and went back to attacking conservatives.

Why do you think you always find conservatives to be defensive?

tstorm823:

aegix drakan:
Why am I not surprised by the way this went?

For the record, I made almost the entirety of my post an opportunity for you to defend a Democratic Socialist, and you ignored it all and went back to attacking conservatives.

Why do you think you always find conservatives to be defensive?

Because it takes a lot of work to defend the indefensible and they need to stay in practice.

Kwak:

Because it takes a lot of work to defend the indefensible and they need to stay in practice.

I'm sorry, the correct answer was "because I'm always attacking".

tstorm823:

aegix drakan:
Why am I not surprised by the way this went?

For the record, I made almost the entirety of my post an opportunity for you to defend a Democratic Socialist, and you ignored it all and went back to attacking conservatives.

Maybe because I'm tired of people deflecting my litany of points away with "Nah that's just a strawman, I ain't going to address it, now defend this other thing and lets forget you ever made those points" and I want a straight answer to my points for once?

Maybe also because I don't think Bernie needs defending. His policies get more popular the more he speaks. And even IF your stats on his positions versus europe's are accurate (citation needed), then fine, he's a little to the left of Europe. That's still pretty reasonable compared to the "not in touch with reality maverick/maniac" that you claim he is.

But hey, at least you answered some of my points to someone else.

tstorm823:

Gay conversion therapy is not now nor has it ever been a conservative practice. That's an artifact left over from the early progressive movement, when eugenics and aggressive psychotherapy were in vogue.

Wow what an attack.

So the many accounts of people who were pushed into conversion therapy (or basically abusive bible camp) by their conservative anti-gay parents aren't the problem.

The stories we have of churches basically kidnapping LGBT people at the request of their families and doing exorcisms on people isn't the problem.

The litany of accounts of people disowned and thrown out of the house because they were gay is not the problem.

The conservatives like Rick Santorum who have in the past said "Conversion therapy works" aren't the problem.

No, no, it's early progressives who are at fault, because they were (you allege) in favor of eugenics (a nazi favourite idea).

What a way to deflect and go "no u".

But here's a shocker, if it ACTUALLY was "early progressives" who are ACTUALLY responsible, then I will vociferously condemn them and say they were wrong, they were assholes, and possibly straight up monsters. And I would do so without hesitation. Because I care about actions and results, not "oh no, my in group did something bad, I will deflect critisism and go no u". See, is it that hard to condemn people who are ostensibly "part of your in-group" when they've done something wrong?

I just need a big old citation on that, and even after that, I'm still going to blame the people who perpetuated it into the modern day.

You can accurately say southern conservatives wanted to continue segregation. You can also say Northern conservatives were against it. That's just pointing out what the status quo of laws is at a given place and time. It's not honest to point to bad laws of the past and call supporting them conservatism while ignoring things like supporting freedom of speech also being conservative.

Oh, another gem. "Well, yes, one group of my in group liked it. But I'm pretty sure that this OTHER part of my in group was against it, so it's a wash". Yeah, going to need a citation on that too.

Especially when reporters can wander into a conservative election rally, and get a conservative voter on camera saying "Yep, we need to bring back segragation, cuz everybody got along better back then".

Also, I reject "freedom of speech being conservative in nature" on two grounds.

One, I never see the "Free Speech Warriors" on the right defend it except when it benefits them. They'll pitch a fit if a university is like "No, I don't want internet doofus Milo to speak at my university", but if Chelsea Manning is denied a fellowship at a university because Intelligence Agency dudes are like "I hate her, she's a traitor, don't you give her any award or speech!" I hear nothing but crickets.

Two, everyone benefits from and likes free speech, It's not a purely conservative stance. Pretty much the only people who are against it are the authoritarian left (the "sjw"s as people like to call them), and the corporate/established media (the Right AND "Nominal Left", both of whom want to silence anything that isn't the pre-approved propaganda) and you know what? Most of us on the left don't like their authoritarian stance either because we think it's wrong and dangerous to silence speech. See, I did it, again, admitting that a part of my in-group is wrong/has a bad position. It's not so hard. Admitting that is the first step to trying to make them better.

That bit about insulin isn't true. There is no conservative going "yeah, drugs should be super expensive here, that's great!" That's just not a thing. We have honest disagreement about the effect of a single-payer system on the cost of medicine. Our medical saves lives constantly, you have to appreciate a hesitation to completely overhaul that thing that's keeping us alive or a skepticism that handing over our medical freedom wholesale will somehow shrink the cost of goods and services overnight.

I didn't say conservatives are cheering for high insulin costs. I said they think it's acceptable.

Which, you know, if you're insisting on saying it can't be done over and over and not budging, when you can hop over to Canada and get Insulin for 30 bucks instead of 300 (an incredible markup, BTW)...I mean, seriously, no other first world nation has prices that high.

And yes, your "medical" saves lives constantly...while leaving 40 thousand or so a year to die because they can't get the care they need, because they can't afford it. Seriously, basically every month there's a new news story of someone dying because they had to ration insulin, or of people LITERALLY crossing the border to buy insulin in Canada and Mexico.

I don't think it's an honest debate, at least not in the halls of government. Nor when you simultaneously claim your system is "almost like every other nation because we cover old people!" AND also "You have to understand us hesitating a complete overhaul of the thing that's keeping us alive".

Especially when corrupt people in the US government have literally opposed legislation that would allow them to import the medicine from Canada at our prices. Which isn't even a dramatic overhaul of the system, it's just introducing the exact same medication at a highly competitive price.

Finally, you know what ISN'T medical freedom? A huge company making about a $300 profit on a $6 medicine by going "See this lifesaving thing you need? Pay up this obscene price or die. Oh, you can't afford it and your Insurance company doesn't want to cover this brand of insulin and wants you to use a brand that you know does not work for you? Sucks to be you!", when just over the border we're charging 10% of the price for the EXACT SAME DRUGS.

People are literally dying, over something that the rest of the industrialized world has figured out, and the only reason not to do it is because there are people who literally make money off of ripping people off for their medicine, and they want to still get paid.

And then you say "conservatives just want an honest debate about this". *Sigh*

It's true, conservatives don't like minimum wage laws. Minimum wage is a stupid talking point. There is no right number to set it at. Indexed scales are basically ignored at the federal level because then you can't bring it again in 5 years for more political points. And of the ways you can try and keep people from being destitute, minimum wage laws are arguably some of the more regressive, as the burden of the law would be passed on to those who lose jobs that can no longer be supported (the poor) and those consumers who spend the most money proportionally at establishments with minimum wage earners (also the poor).

Then index it to inflation. Bernie himself is calling for it, and I'm at least 50% sure Warren said that as well.

And if giving people more money to be able to afford to live is a regressive way to lift people out of starvation poverty...Then what is your solution, pray tell?

Because history shows that as long as the minimum wage is increased gently over time and not in one huge shot, jobs are NOT lost, and in fact more money flows back into the economy because tons more people now have the ability to spend it.

tstorm823:

I'm sorry, the correct answer was "because I'm always attacking".

This is hilarious, because from my perspective, it's typically conservatives that are always playing offense. At least that's the impression I've gotten over years of arguing on this forum, and from taking a gander at conservative media both new and oldschool.

Am I "Attacking" a heck of a lot now? Yes. I am. Because I'm tired of always being the one to play defense and I want to use the points that I actually want to discuss for once, thank you.

aegix drakan:

Wow what an attack.

So the many accounts of people who were pushed into conversion therapy (or basically abusive bible camp) by their conservative anti-gay parents aren't the problem.

The stories we have of churches basically kidnapping LGBT people at the request of their families and doing exorcisms on people isn't the problem.

The litany of accounts of people disowned and thrown out of the house because they were gay is not the problem.

The conservatives like Rick Santorum who have in the past said "Conversion therapy works" aren't the problem.

No, no, it's early progressives who are at fault, because they were (you allege) in favor of eugenics (a nazi favourite idea).

What a way to deflect and go "no u".

But here's a shocker, if it ACTUALLY was "early progressives" who are ACTUALLY responsible, then I will vociferously condemn them and say they were wrong, they were assholes, and possibly straight up monsters. And I would do so without hesitation. Because I care about actions and results, not "oh no, my in group did something bad, I will deflect critisism and go no u". See, is it that hard to condemn people who are ostensibly "part of your in-group" when they've done something wrong?

I just need a big old citation on that, and even after that, I'm still going to blame the people who perpetuated it into the modern day.

A history of conversion therapy in the United States, by Wikipedia

It stars a whole bunch of psychologists starting in the early 1900s, and the Christian right gets 2 sentences at the bottom. My problem with your comment here isn't that you're misidentifying the problem or the people associated with it, it's that you're misidentifying the practice as conservative. Someone trying to change people to engineer the society they want isn't being conservative. Someone advocating social reforms through the government to create that society is progressive. That's progressivism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progressivism. I consider myself a progressive conservative, and if I could change one thing about modern political rhetoric, it would be taking back the word "progressive". Because it's lost its meaning. Since the religious right of the late 20th century, people have been using the word conservative as though it means Evangelical Christianity. But like, Prohibition wasn't a conservative movement, that was literally The Progressive Movement. And was also the evangelical christians. You can be evangelical and have progressive ideas if your ideas are expanding the reach of government for social reform. But that's not how people use the term anymore, they call that conservative if it has to do with Christianity. And then the inverse of that is people using the word progressive for anything anti-christian.

And like, the hardcore evangelical right who want things like gay conversion aren't normal. They're loud, but they're a small percentage fringe group. The anti-religious left who think religion cause all the wars in history is also not normal. They're loud, but they're a small percentage fringe group (though not necessarily a small percentage of this particular forum). That we're splitting the words conservative and progressive into fringe religious groups throwing eggs at each other is kind of a travesty.

Especially when reporters can wander into a conservative election rally, and get a conservative voter on camera saying "Yep, we need to bring back segragation, cuz everybody got along better back then".

There are bad conservative ideas, segregation is one of them. There are also bad progressive ideas, people out there who genuinely think we need a Thanos snap to solve the worlds issues. Judging a political school of thought based on the worst that can come out of it is not reasonable. And this is especially true with progressivism and conservatism because they aren't ideological positions, they're relative and pragmatic. Socialism has a meaning that is the same everywhere you go, liberalism has a meaning, fascism has a meaning. You can't have a policy be fascist in one place and liberal in another. This isn't true of conservatism and progressivism. What is conservative in one place and time can be progressive in another. The French Revolution was progressive, it tossed off the status quo of the monarchy and then enacted sweeping social reforms. The American Revolution was the conservative revolution, relative independence from the monarchy was the American way of life before the king got a little too handsy, and the Revolution threw him off to preserve that status quo, and went on to codify the limited government conditions that they already were living under. Both revolutions against monarchy, very different philosophy.

One, I never see the "Free Speech Warriors" on the right defend it except when it benefits them. They'll pitch a fit if a university is like "No, I don't want internet doofus Milo to speak at my university", but if Chelsea Manning is denied a fellowship at a university because Intelligence Agency dudes are like "I hate her, she's a traitor, don't you give her any award or speech!" I hear nothing but crickets.

My instinct is to say "you don't listen to people then", because I swear to God I die a little inside every time I hear a gun-toting conservatives quote some version of "I disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

But I got distracted because your comparison is between Milo Yiannopolis and Chelsea Manning. Comparing an offensive internet troll to someone arrested for espionage. That's not a fair comparison. Like, pick a Democrat, or a communist, or one of the 4-horseman of new atheism. Just any public figure who wasn't dishonorably discharged and isn't in jail for contempt of court to compare to would be nice. I'm sure there someone out there who wants Sam Harris banned from campuses.

Two, everyone benefits from and likes free speech, It's not a purely conservative stance. Pretty much the only people who are against it are the authoritarian left (the "sjw"s as people like to call them), and the corporate/established media (the Right AND "Nominal Left", both of whom want to silence anything that isn't the pre-approved propaganda) and you know what? Most of us on the left don't like their authoritarian stance either because we think it's wrong and dangerous to silence speech. See, I did it, again, admitting that a part of my in-group is wrong/has a bad position. It's not so hard. Admitting that is the first step to trying to make them better.

It's not about who likes it, it's about why they like it. There are multiple reasons to support freedom of speech, but being conservative is one of them, and that's probably your position too. Do you think through the ideological implications of freedom of speech, as the founding fathers did, and decide whether to support it or not based on a paradigm of liberal values? Or do you support it because you're comfortable with the current status quo in this regard and recognize the upheaval that would result from a sweeping change in policy? It's ok, you're allowed to have conservative opinions. You're allowed to support things on the principle of not fixing what isn't broken.

Going back to the guy advocating for segregation, I have no problem condemning that person absolutely. That position is super wrong, and also conservative. Why is that statement conservative? Because it's that "don't fix what isn't broken" mindset. They're claiming that segregation wasn't a broken system, so we shouldn't have tried to fix it. And spelled out like that, I hope you can identify that the problem with that person's position isn't the application of conservative principles, it's that the principle is being applied to morally repugnant perspective. They're not wrong to not fix what isn't broken, they're wrong to think that segregation isn't a broken system. Imagine a world where there never was racial segregation, everyone was always equal, but racial resentment just started to form. And a progressive minded person thought "what if the government segregates spaces for different ethnicities, and then people don't have to even see each other, and we'll have peace." I don't mean to demonize the idea of safe spaces, but there are definitely current examples of places segregating entire buildings because of thinking like this. And its just as reprehensible as the person who made the statement you're quoting. Why? Because the problem isn't conservative or progressive perspectives, the problem is segregation.

People are literally dying, over something that the rest of the industrialized world has figured out, and the only reason not to do it is because there are people who literally make money off of ripping people off for their medicine, and they want to still get paid.

And then you say "conservatives just want an honest debate about this". *Sigh*

You understand that the honest debate you're sighing about is literally happening right now. There are bills to address medical costs, sponsored by Republicans, being debated amongst Republicans, likely to be credited to Republicans.

And like, of course there's reasonable debate to be had about these things. "Why not import from Canada at Canada prices?" seems like a really reasonable question to me. I saw no reason why someone would be against that. So I googled it, and consequently found out why people might be against it. Those concerns don't seem dishonest or unreasonable. I find the argument that we'd put a run on Canadian medicine supplies reasonably compelling, that if we triple the demand for insulin in Canada, we're as likely to raise their prices as we are to lower our own.

Because history shows that as long as the minimum wage is increased gently over time and not in one huge shot, jobs are NOT lost, and in fact more money flows back into the economy because tons more people now have the ability to spend it.

Because if it's increased gently over time, it's not doing anything. Wages increase over time naturally with inflation. We haven't increased minimum wage recently, and the consequence of that is fewer and fewer people making minimum wage. here's some info on federal minimum wage. If you go to table 10 near the bottom and look at the percentage of people making minimum wage, it decreases steadily and then spikes up when they increase the minimum. Because wages rise with or without minimum wage hikes. Don't let Amazon fool you, they didn't up their baseline to $15 in protest of low minimum wages. They raised it because they need to pay at least that much to attract people to miserable warehouse work. A jump to $15 for everyone would have an impact, a slow rate increase over time is largely a placebo.

This is hilarious, because from my perspective, it's typically conservatives that are always playing offense. At least that's the impression I've gotten over years of arguing on this forum, and from taking a gander at conservative media both new and oldschool.

Am I "Attacking" a heck of a lot now? Yes. I am. Because I'm tired of always being the one to play defense and I want to use the points that I actually want to discuss for once, thank you.

Pick a lane. Are you tired of conservatives always on offense? Or are you tired of conservatives always defending themselves? Do you want to stop talking about the policies conservatives want, or do you want conservatives to stop talking about the policies you want? I'd hazard a guess you just want conservatives to stop talking and agree with you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here