The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: scifibum on October 17, 2019, 04:01:38 PM

Title: hey moderator
Post by: scifibum on October 17, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
Please unregister me.


You Trumpists who want to live in a post-truth society, gfy!
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: yossarian22c on October 17, 2019, 04:03:22 PM
I wish you wouldn't.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 17, 2019, 04:45:41 PM
When one doesn't trust the kool-aid, it's best to observe those who imbibe heavily. 
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 17, 2019, 05:18:52 PM
Just quit if you have too, though it'd be nice if you didn't.  Talking to people with different views is supposed to expand our minds.

Moderator, please don't "unregister" him it seems to break the boards.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 17, 2019, 05:24:39 PM
It is a silly reason to ask to be unregistered.  :)  Now if you're a self diagnosed internet addict...

Not that I would know anything about that.   ;D
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 18, 2019, 03:47:22 PM
Trump has been the cause of too many families breaking apart and people estranging themselves from one another. Can't we all just get along? If Ellen DeGeneres can watch a baseball game with George Bush hopefully we can all at least stay on speaking terms.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: ScottF on October 18, 2019, 04:24:50 PM
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left. When's the last time you heard of a celebrity having to make a public statement justifying why they were seen with a prominent liberal? It’s cuckoo.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 18, 2019, 05:32:10 PM
Quote
Trump has been the cause of too many families breaking apart and people estranging themselves from one another

Rereading a book ‘Critical Conversations’ and Gladwell’s ‘Talking to Strangers’
The issue may be that we have forgotten how to effectively communicate with each other, which the introduction of social media seems to have exasperated.
To many of our ‘conversations’ are approached all our nothing, like or dislike, resulting in people either withholding information from the pool of meaning or ‘violently’ attempting to dominate it, skewing perceptions.

Personally I think Critical Conversations should be a required subject in high school.

Quote
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left
Example of a statement that get's in the way of dialog. The left accused as being to easily offended while the right accuse of intentionally using language to offend and distract. We end up taking about the politics of 'offense' rather then the issue at hand.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 18, 2019, 11:06:33 PM
Quote
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left
Example of a statement that get's in the way of dialog. The left accused as being to easily offended while the right accuse of intentionally using language to offend and distract. We end up taking about the politics of 'offense' rather then the issue at hand.

The thing is people on the board here have been surprisingly civil in the past few years, especially if you compare it to the years prior to that. Granted, we're a smaller community now, but all the same most conversations at most reach a level of "mild taunting sarcasm" as their boiling point. Sure, that's still not ideal, but it's quite a ways away from people outright calling each other out, insulting each other based on personal secrets, and using words like "evil" and "despicable" in relation to each other. I'm really happy that sort of thing is gone. So despite the fact that many conversations do end in two sides squarely refusing to agree AT ALL with the other side, perhaps more so than in the past, it never gets nasty, so I don't really buy that things are so offensive that people can't take it anymore. I think it's more an issue that people increasingly can't stand it when others disagree with them *completely*. I don't just mean "well I sort of disagree with you on that" but rather more like "you are totally wrong and what you say is the opposite of reality." This type of statement seems unpalatable for many people now (and I'm not referring to scifi, who has always seemed reasonable).
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Kasandra on October 19, 2019, 09:33:14 AM
Civility is a form of expression that can mask adamancy and deep prejudices.  I always respected ScifiBum for both his civility and a lack of adamancy.  I agree that his leaving weakens the forum further, but a lack of confrontational interaction doesn't mean that some don't have truly objectionable views and attitudes.  It only means you're being nicer, like how people appear and behave in Church on Sunday.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: ScottF on October 19, 2019, 10:36:02 AM
Civility is a form of expression that can mask adamancy and deep prejudices.  I always respected ScifiBum for both his civility and a lack of adamancy.  I agree that his leaving weakens the forum further, but a lack of confrontational interaction doesn't mean that some don't have truly objectionable views and attitudes.  It only means you're being nicer, like how people appear and behave in Church on Sunday.

This sounds an awful lot like “it doesn’t really matter if you behave and treat others well outwardly, we know that deep in your inner thoughts you're probably a [insert_label].”
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 19, 2019, 12:00:15 PM
The way I look at it is views I oppose are obviously out there, and in significant numbers.  The more I can understand the lines of reasoning behind them, the less confused/enraged I find myself.  I may never agree, but getting away from, "Are these people *censored*ing insane!?!" is a good start.  :P
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Kasandra on October 19, 2019, 12:18:22 PM
"This sounds an awful lot like “it doesn’t really matter if you behave and treat others well outwardly, we know that deep in your inner thoughts you're probably a [insert_label].”"

You don't go to a forum to engage just with people you might agree with.  I left the forum because it was extremely frustrating to attempt to have a discussion based on facts with some (a minority of) members.  Or, to put it the way some Trump supporters often do, who have their own set of alternative facts.  Every discussion involved posts from members with opposing views, which is what is supposed to happen, but too often facts were met with either shrugs or denials, even when the facts were well known and not in dispute.  Those members were civil, but often condescending and frequently dismissive, finding the least nit of information to argue against the vast bulk that conflicted with their view.  Climate change, anyone?  Some still here would still insist that Clinton should be in jail despite her never having been found guilty or liable for any criminal actions, but have no concern that Trump is still running loose causing havoc across the entire globe despite his dismal record and sociopathic personality.

The sort of frustration that I think ScifiBum is pointing to is not unlike trying to understand Republicans in Congress today who stand idly by while Trump trashes the Constitution and even denies the legitimacy of Congress when it suits his (too often corrupt) purposes.  I could go on, but I already have.

Everyone here today appears to be unfailingly civil, bless their hearts.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 20, 2019, 05:11:43 AM
I think we could all do a better job acknowledging good points made by people whose conclusion is not the one we arrived at?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Kasandra on October 20, 2019, 08:03:34 AM
I think we could all do a better job acknowledging good points made by people whose conclusion is not the one we arrived at?
<sigh>, ok... ;)
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 10:24:20 AM
Well, Kasandra has a point correct, even if the outrage behind it is not.  We no longer have common facts.

Look at the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I don't think anyone then or now reasonably disputes that Bill perjured himself by lying under oath.  I don't think there's a legitimate argument today (and barely one then, notwithstanding that it was made) that having an affair (this was pre-me too so that's how it was interpreted) was an impeachable offense.  I don't think anyone seriously doubted that he'd cheated on Hillary, with multiple women (whether or not they believed those specific women about what happened), or that he had relations with Monica.

We were all on board with that. 

Where we varied is on what we thought about those facts.  Some thought the President lying under oath was impeachable (no doubt a standard the left would insist on for Trump, even it if's about Stormy Daniels), some thought that was an elevation of process over substance (if you can't impeach for the affair, you can't impeach for lying about it).

Nixon?  Facts were not really in dispute, nor honestly was whether he should be impeached.

This is not still true.  Hillary's server is a perfect example.  Take a look at Lisa Page's sworn testimony.  The DOJ told the FBI that - notwithstanding the law - they would not file charges for gross negligence.  Comey's statement, and the revisions thereto, make it crystal clear they found gross negligence (in my view, even a moderately aggressive prosecutor would have found intentional violations).  Yet, we still have people asserting that nothing illegal happened.  You can't even question that there were violations of the record keeping rules, or frustration of legitimate Freedom of Information Act concerns.  All of which is against the law, and all of which is unethical.

Yet the argument isn't about why - against that backdrop - it was fair or not fair to prosecute.  The argument is a disputation argument.  Didn't happen.  No proof (never enough).  We aren't arguing about whether the statute is too broad, or whether it's obvious that deliberately creating an outside server violates.  We're arguing a complex version it happened (see these sources that agree with me), it didn't happen (see these sources that agree with me).
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 10:34:59 AM
Are we arguing it did/did not happen?  Here I thought it was an argument as to what extent it matters? 
This topic, and the (fair or not) general impression I get of her doing whatever it is she thinks she can get away with while avoiding prosecution, is why I desperately wanted her to fail to gain the party nomination.  That and being married to a former president.  (Down with dynastic rule!)  :P

Did I compromise my standards in order to try and defeat Trump?  Yep. 

She deliberately flaunted the system to avoid FOIA.  It does matter to me.  Just, as it happens, not as much as preventing Trump from winning.  What makes me scratch my head and ponder is if it was Hillary vs. an actual sane Republican nominee, would I have tossed in a protest vote knowing a SC seat or two was in the balance?  Kinda glad I didn't have to find out that answer.  (Well, not really, given the outcome...)  :P
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 10:37:26 AM
It wouldn't have mattered who the Republican nominee is, you'd be just as convinced by election day that they were evil incarnate.  It's a game the media plays with you.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 10:42:08 AM
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?  What new skill did they develop this cycle?  I don't remember thinking any former presidents were evil incarnate.

The Media is bad.  Nothing to do with Trump himself.  I've been duped huh?  Half the country or more... duped by their "game"?  Hey I get it, a lot of people like the policies goin down right now.  Don't try to pretend it wasn't a deal with the devil to get them through. 

Now, I do think Pence is a fanatic.  Not evil, but as someone who wants religion as far from politics as possible he is disturbing, but evil incarnate?  Nahh.  Still dangerous though.  But I guess that's just me being played as well.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: LetterRip on October 21, 2019, 11:03:11 AM
Look at the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I don't think anyone then or now reasonably disputes that Bill perjured himself by lying under oath.

Actually it is the opinion of legal scholars on the matter that he didn't.  The judges instructions and the definition agreed to by both parties defined sexual relations (the words were 'textualized') such that the recipient wasn't having sexual relations.

Here is the definition that the opposing council created

Quote
For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes.. [1] contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person...."Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

Quote
One of the interesting things about a declaratory or prescriptive definition like this one is that it supersedes the ordinary meaning of the term.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

So it isn't clear he in fact committed perjury because he was the recipient not the performer and thus by opposing councils definition he did not have 'sexual relations'.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 11:21:31 AM
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?

Nothing changed, they've pitched every single Republican pairing as either either or incompetent of both since Bush I's re-election campaign, versus pitching every single Democratic pairing as inspiring or ground breaking or both. 

Which candidate wasn't painted as an arch-conservative, threatening or outright evil?  Just John McCain, and even there he wasn't painted remotely flatteringly (notwithstanding how much love the media gave him before or after), and instead they absolutely destroyed Sarah Palin and painted her as the incompetent arch-conservative.  But McCain was a media win to get the nomination in the first place.

Quote
The Media is bad.  Nothing to do with Trump himself.

Those are unrelated things, and the proper way to phrase it would be:

The Media supports the DNC.  Nothing Trump could do would be presented as other than bad.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 11:47:32 AM
That is a radically different perspective than mine.

Would you at least concede that "the media" has an abnormally larger bug up their rumps regarding Trump in particular then?  Or do you just see this DNC puppetry as par for the course? 

How do YOU view Trump (in terms of troubling/evil) compared to other former presidents or candidates in his party?  Just more of the same unfairly maligned by The Media?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 21, 2019, 11:59:48 AM
Romney was legitimately threatening to a large part of the country. He thought 50% of America is full of freeloaders, and wanted to chop taxes for the wealthy - by capping federal spending at 20% of GDP leading to drastic cuts to SNAP. Reporting on those facts didn't make the media biased, nor did it make everyone who was concerned about his potential presidency a mindless sheep being manipulated by the press.

He did also create universal healthcare in MA, which was widely reported and appealing to the people further to the left - which could have been effective if he hadn't bashed Obamacare in an effort to secure the nomination from a party that was whipped into a froth over that issue.

The Palin treatment wasn't so different from Johnson being roasted over Aleppo. Both of these candidates were ill-equipped and ill-prepared to answer questions in an interview. She was incapable of naming any supreme court case other than Roe v Wade, for example. Do you expect that any other candidate would be unable to cough one up?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 12:19:39 PM
Would you at least concede that "the media" has an abnormally larger bug up their rumps regarding Trump in particular then?  Or do you just see this DNC puppetry as par for the course?

I agree the media has it more in for Trump than normal.  Republicans are only evil, Trump is a threat to the system itself (i.e., the entrenched media/bureaucracy).

Quote
How do YOU view Trump (in terms of troubling/evil) compared to other former presidents or candidates in his party?

I don't think you could convince me that we've had an evil President.  At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.  Now, they're also part of a class of autocrats that believe they are better than the little people and have repeatedly accreted power to that class.

Oddly despite all the paranoia about Trump's "autocratic tendencies" he's been less so than average on that front.  I mean, I actually read text in and around the SC's decision on the travel ban that literally implied it would be within the Presidential powers to enact the ban, but maybe not for Trump.  Could not have been clearer that there was a view that someone other than the "worthy" was exercising the powers they were never supposed to touch. 

Quote
Just more of the same unfairly maligned by The Media?

They hate Trump so much more that they're openly opposed to him.  Gave up pretending.

Romney was legitimately threatening to a large part of the country. He thought 50% of America is full of freeloaders, and wanted to chop taxes for the wealthy - by capping federal spending at 20% of GDP leading to drastic cuts to SNAP. Reporting on those facts didn't make the media biased, nor did it make everyone who was concerned about his potential presidency a mindless sheep being manipulated by the press.

Reporting on "facts" really isn't the issue.  "Half" the country generally finds positions of each side to be "legitimately threatening" but when the media only validates the blue half you get the bias I'm talking about.

I mean my goodness, the media has so sold the DNC on believing that they're the "good guys" that they believe that when they do evil it's justified.  Free speech?  No longer true if you say something "wrong."?  Equal protection?  Not if you practice "hate" (but excluding any hate by leftists on the conservatives, which is justified).  Attacking children?  Totally okay if they are pro life or wearing a Maga hat.  Right to privacy?  Allows abortions, protects journalists from criticism, doesn't apply to anyone who may be a Republican because they people have a right to investigate them until they find the crimes they must be guilty of.

Quote
He did also create universal healthcare in MA, which was widely reported and appealing to the people further to the left - which could have been effective if he hadn't bashed Obamacare in an effort to secure the nomination from a party that was whipped into a froth over that issue.

It's been a while since I looked at this, but I'm pretty sure that "Romneycare" was passed by a Democratic legislature that put it in place with a veto proof majority.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement (and I'm pretty sure he didn't get "credit" for it until the Dems wanted to convince voters that Obamacare was really a Republican idea - gee I wonder how they were able to do that?  Couldn't be a compliant media that sold that lie?)

It's just stunning that a "state media" is obviously a bad thing, and that Trump even criticizing the media is a "bridge too far," but a media being openly in the tank for a political party is a "nothing to look at here" situation.

Quote
The Palin treatment wasn't so different from Johnson being roasted over Aleppo. Both of these candidates were ill-equipped and ill-prepared to answer questions in an interview. She was incapable of naming any supreme court case other than Roe v Wade, for example. Do you expect that any other candidate would be unable to cough one up?

If you only see the out of context moments the media wants you to see you get a picture of Palin as incompetent.  Go take an honest look now and see if you think the same thing.  I mean, she was running in an election versus a President who visited 57 states to win.  If that was Palin's line it'd be as famous as Dan Quayle not being able to spell tomato.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 21, 2019, 12:34:50 PM
Quote
So despite the fact that many conversations do end in two sides squarely refusing to agree AT ALL with the other side, perhaps more so than in the past, it never gets nasty, so I don't really buy that things are so offensive that people can't take it anymore.

I’ve noticed that moderate voices tend to leave the discussion, maybe not so much in this forum but most certainly in the general social media commentary.

In this forum there is tendency to use labels such as ‘left’ and ‘right’ as an all or nothing grouping which is unhelpful.
Though conservative by nature I assume most would view me as left, however I don’t identify with much of what is coming out of the right or the left today. 
By being labelled as ‘left’ there seems to be an implied assumption that I must defend all that anyone on the left has brought forward which is tiresome. 

To comment a concern, no one should have to acknowledge, explain, defend every foolish thing that someone on the extreme left or right have said or done. The labels ‘left’ or ‘right’ are too wide of brush to allow constructive dialog.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 12:37:51 PM
Quote
At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.
Right here you nail the heart of the matter.  I have believed this of every other president, regardless of party my whole life.  I may have thought they were foolishly or recklessly wrong, but I did believe that. 

I don't with Trump. 
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 21, 2019, 01:10:38 PM
Quote
At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.
Right here you nail the heart of the matter.  I have believed this of every other president, regardless of party my whole life.  I may have thought they were foolishly or recklessly wrong, but I did believe that. 

I don't with Trump.

This is more illuminating to me than many other arguments about red vs blue. I find it astonishing that people actually believe that the person in office is *ever* thinking "gee, what would be best for the country?" Or at least, in any sense you might contemplate. They *might* be thinking "the country as it is stinks and in the new country I imagine things will be great, let's move towards that." Except their vision of it has nothing to do with you or what's best for you. Not that it's a fascistic fantasy: rather, their vision of "best" probably involves some modicrum of the bromides people are all brought up with, a large dose of their team finally having their way, add a pinch of the right people being the ones in control, and cap it off with keeping their system going in perpetuity. They neither want real discussion nor a plurality of opinions in the mix, nor will they intentionally accept the risk that their power or position could ever diminish.

The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power. I find it astonishing that a claim could be made that Presidents in the past have had the country's best interests at heart and now Trump doesn't. Crazy! What was America's best interest in LBJ reversing Kenny's position on Vietnam, or Iran-Contra, or Iraq 2.0, or Libya, or the Syria nonsense? What is America's interest is being patsy's of Wall Street?

And I don't mean to say literally every single move is the devil itself in the flesh. There is some good and some bad, some corruption, some business as usual, some self-serving, and some doing what the public expects. But that Trump is suddenly the only one to be doing stuff against American interests? Hah, I guess it depends on what "American" means. If it means "what a smallish group of people would like America to become" then I think that's been the status quo for Presidents, yeah. If it means what the average American would like for the country, in living up to the values of normal morals? Give me a break.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 21, 2019, 01:51:25 PM
Romney not a reluctant supporter.

Quote
In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, Governor Romney announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all the uninsured.[17]

57 states should have been 47, and it deserved a chuckle - not much more. Compared to the Howard Dean scream treatment in the media, Trump has had it easy. I'll allow that Trump would set off a storm, but less about bias than the fact that you can make it part of a pattern. Trump also would have either doubled down on it being 57, somehow, or denied that he ever said it.

Obama owned it, and defused it with humor rather than vitriol. It's a sign of someone who knows how to work the press rather than antagonize it.

Quote
"I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million,” Obama said, according to the Times. “I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh."

Meanwhile, a Republican legislator said this:

Quote
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pushed the theory on the House floor in 2011, according a report at the time from Mediaite.

“And I know the President made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states, and I’m well aware that there are not 57 states in this country, although there are 57 members of OIC, the Islamic states in the world,” Gohmert said. “Perhaps there was some confusion whether he’d been to all 57 Islamic states as opposed to all 50 U.S. states. But nonetheless, we have an obligation to the 50 American states, not the 57 Muslim, Islamic states.”

Wow, you want to talk about spin and fake news.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 02:15:28 PM
Quote
The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power.
Previously, the path to that political power, was by appearing, and campaigning, and promising, and (sometimes) fulfilling those promises, to make at least your base and enough of the center believe you were indeed "doing what's best for the country". 

What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it. 
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 21, 2019, 02:49:07 PM
What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it.

Would it scare you to consider that that's all it ever was, and the rest was self-delusion? But it's not like Trump is literally saying he doesn't need to fulfill campaign promises. In fact most of what people are most upset with policy-wise is *that* he is trying to fulfill campaign promises (that they don't like). But I don't see your point that 'all Trump is doing' is satisfying their hunger without the platform to go with it. He has the platform. And I think it's evident (to me at least) that it really is Trump himself that is his own worst offence, and that it's not really about his specific policies. Well if his detractors (many of them, at least) don't think his policies are the main issue with him, then how do we get to comparing him to previous Presidents in terms of how much they really tried to get done following their campaign?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 03:28:51 PM
I like coming here.  It's right in the name.  I can always count on getting a hit of that, "wow, and I thought *I* was cynical."  :)

Quote
Would it scare you to consider that that's all it ever was, and the rest was self-delusion?
People go on and on about how dishonest Trump is and how he is a constant pathological liar. 

I would suggest his inability to act (just another form of lying) is one of his biggest detriments.  We need to believe that these people we grant all this power over us have our best interests at heart.  Sure we may know they are selfish and power hungry, but we still need to believe that story we tell ourselves.  Any time it's blatantly demonstrated to be just self-delusion, that politician loses their job.  At least in a well functioning democracy anyhow.

Did Trump telegraph his punches on the campaign trail?  Yep.  Doesn't mean he's doing what's best for the country.  Just that he does what he needs to show he's fighting.  Who hardly matters.  As long as he's a fighter and not letting whoever it is, get the best of him.  And insuring the list of potential enemies to fight keeps growing.  Democrats?  Hillary?  Illegals?  PC culture?  The Media?  Jhina?  Iran?  AntiFa?  The Deepstate?  Enemies everywhere.  But he's fighting!  Unifying and leading are boring.  We want FIGHTERS!
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 04:00:30 PM
Quote
The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power.
Previously, the path to that political power, was by appearing, and campaigning, and promising, and (sometimes) fulfilling those promises, to make at least your base and enough of the center believe you were indeed "doing what's best for the country".

This is why I said we're not even playing with the same facts.  Trump made lots of promises that appealed to a majority of the country, including some that have been repeatedly promised by virtually all the current politicians in office (like securing the border).  It's said Trump keeps a list of those promises outside his office and checks them off as it goes.
excessive imprisonment.

Quote
What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it.

Do you not remember Obama's campaigns?  With the almost religious appeal, a slogan "Hope and Change," and a "blank slate" (artificially blank by intent through the media).  I mean I remember seeing his rallies, gleefully covered by the media, where people were fainting in the ailses and acting like they were watching a televangilist.

Or what about Hillary's campaign?  I can not count how many times I asked what her issues were and none of her supporters could tell you.  Sure they pointed to her campaign website, but they had no quotes or speeches from their candidate that were passionate on any of it, no comercials highlighting any of it.  Her real campaign points seemed to be "most qualified ever," "you can trust me" and "I'm not Donald Trump."  (and to be clear I literally saw ads paid for by her campaign with those thems.

What exactly, did they promise during the campaign?  Not actually much.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 04:04:44 PM
Romney not a reluctant supporter.

Not my recollection, but I'll defer to you on this.

Quote
Meanwhile, a Republican legislator said this:

Quote
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pushed the theory on the House floor in 2011, according a report at the time from Mediaite.

“And I know the President made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states, and I’m well aware that there are not 57 states in this country, although there are 57 members of OIC, the Islamic states in the world,” Gohmert said. “Perhaps there was some confusion whether he’d been to all 57 Islamic states as opposed to all 50 U.S. states. But nonetheless, we have an obligation to the 50 American states, not the 57 Muslim, Islamic states.”

Wow, you want to talk about spin and fake news.

Lol, yep he said it, on the floor of the House, the only place in the country where you can lie however you want and there are no legal repercussions.  You may recall how Harry Reid knowingly lied on the House floor about Romney's taxes to influence the election.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 21, 2019, 04:11:51 PM
Border security, an offshoot on solving our illegal immigration problem, is one policy I can get behind, I even brought that up just the other day as an example.  You cannot find a "majority" of Americans who agree with how he's perused that policy though. 

Quote
I can not count how many times I asked what her issues were and none of her supporters could tell you.
Because she was a terrible candidate.  /shrug  I'm sure not going to defend her. 
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 21, 2019, 04:14:36 PM
Except that that idea didn't originate with Louie. It originated in the conservative media - email chains, blogs, talk radio. As part of the relentless campaign of "Obama is a Muslim". Or the anti-Christ, or a secret socialist, or take your pick of other unfair characterization. The only difference is that there's less written press on the conservative side because many of them can't read. :P
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 21, 2019, 04:19:24 PM
I like coming here.  It's right in the name.  I can always count on getting a hit of that, "wow, and I thought *I* was cynical."  :)

 :D

Quote
We need to believe that these people we grant all this power over us have our best interests at heart.  Sure we may know they are selfish and power hungry, but we still need to believe that story we tell ourselves.  Any time it's blatantly demonstrated to be just self-delusion, that politician loses their job.  At least in a well functioning democracy anyhow.

Yes! This is where it all comes home. In an era where people are sick of the lie, who know too well already that the thing we need to tell ourselves is BS, is there a point where they'll elect someone who says to hell with all that? I think we're there. Why else would a guy whose MO is to tell it like it is, often rudely, win a national election? Maybe because people are so disgusted with people not telling it like it is. My challenge to you is to consider: do we *actually* need to tell ourselves the thing you say we need to tell ourselves about our leaders? Is that really good? Or was it the case that people tried that and it bit them, and now they want the red pill? Or at least maybe they think they do; maybe what they want is another blue pill that feels like a red pill. These are difficult questions to answer. But I think Trump's popularity is not unrelated to Bernie's in terms of disaffected voters and upset citizens. I also think both can be traced back to Occupy, to the 2008 collapse, and to corruption that mass media isn't up to hiding any more. It's not like it was in the 70's where ACB and NBC could whosale make up reality and you believed it because why wouldn't you? Now we know why we wouldn't, and they aren't the only game in town.

I don't think Trump is *just* a populist President, nor that his popularity is a fluke, and nor that only his brazen rudeness is what people like. There is something bad we've been fed and many people won't eat it again. Or at least I hope that interpretation is correct, rather than the "trolling the world" interpretation of Trump being in power. I hope it's because Hillary was unacceptable - and not just her personally but the system she represents - that he won, and not because he is genuinely someone his voters admired. I would be more concerned, perhaps as much as some here are, if he and he alone really is the way of the future. But rather I think he represents a bunch of stuff people do not want, which may just include that stuff we used to think we had to tell ourselves.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 21, 2019, 04:56:04 PM
Quote
Why else would a guy whose MO is to tell it like it is

I understand what your saying but have always struggled with the idea of 'Tell it like it is' verses 'Tell it as I see it'
Trumps transparency lies in telling it as he see it, my problem is that, that does not necessarily mean he's 'telling it as it is'. The two perspectives are not the same, yet many I think accept that they are.

Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is. To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 21, 2019, 05:04:44 PM
I understand what your saying but have always struggled with the idea of 'Tell it like it is' verses 'Tell it as I see it'
Trumps transparency lies in telling it as he see it, my problem is that, that does not necessarily mean he's 'telling it as it is'. The two perspectives are not the same, yet many I think accept that they are.

I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics.  It's pretty much the same thing politicians do all the time, they steal a story, they tell you an exaggerated version of reality, and 95% of the time no one, press included, cares.  When they do care, it's only for partisan reasons.  Will Trump, they literally fact check every sentence, and they deliberately misconstrue them as far as possible (and then some).

Quote
Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.

And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen, yet somehow a huge chuck of blue country thinks this is real.


Quote
To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

So don't "agree with Trump," just realize he's on the right side of what needs to be done.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 21, 2019, 05:46:16 PM
Quote
I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics
I would agree, for alot of people the ends justify the means. The specifics or how doesn't matter

Quote
labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.
Quote
And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

Quote
So don't "agree with Trump," just realize he's on the right side of what needs to be done
.
But I don't have to "realize" hes on the right side of "what needs to be done" when I fear that the how he gets things done may be doing a greater harm.
There are many examples in history where such a approach didn't end well.

The main difference that I see between our stance is within the idea of "the ends justifying the means" Maybe its a sliding scale however on the whole for me it does not. The end is always in the beginning, debt comes due.

Could  Trump get things done without the Hyberboly 


Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 21, 2019, 06:09:22 PM
Everyone knows the inflamed appendix needs to come out. Don't worry about how it comes out.  ???
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 21, 2019, 06:17:55 PM
Quote
I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics
I would agree, for alot of people the ends justify the means. The specifics or how doesn't matter

I don't think that's an accurate parse of what Seriati said. And if you go based on our conversations at the moment, my inspection seems to point towards the reverse of what you're saying: that it may be the case that the means justify the ends for both his supporters (we like that he goes against convention, whatever else happens) and for his detractors (it doesn't matter what he tries to accomplish because we don't like how he does anything).

Quote
Quote
labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.
Quote
And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

I heard him say many times that the Mexicans are sending America their criminals, which includes murders or rapists. It's up to you to parse whether that additionally means he's "equating immigrants with murderers and rapists." The issue that tends to be contentious here whether Trump's saying that is a dog whistle for "Mexicans are bad" or whether the technical accuracy or his statements are what should be considered. And yet many people, yourself included, seem to be sure he's been calling immigrants a bunch of criminals. It may be tough for people who've never lived in New York, but anyone living there is used to immigrants working everywhere, and if you're a business owner you've probably been benefiting from it. It strikes me as unlikely that Trump actually thinks such things of "immigrants" in general, being from where he's from. It would just be a weird thing for a New Yorker to think, although I guess anything's possible. I could see the "they're taking our jobs" argument (which in NYC at any rate is true) but not the "they can't be trusted" argument. Maybe he's even crazier than I think and he does think that. That still leaves it being a deliberate dog whistle to people who actually do believe it, even if he doesn't, although that makes him craftier than many would give him credit for.

Quote
Maybe its a sliding scale however on the whole for me it does not. The end is always in the beginning, debt comes due.

You're saying this to Seriati, who prefers adherence to the law over getting results?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 22, 2019, 10:24:59 AM
Quote
it doesn't matter what he tries to accomplish because we don't like how he does anything

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. For me and those the struggle parsing Trump words from intention what he tries to accomplish does matter as does How.  Its not an either or. For example, I agree with him pulling out of Syria but not the how.  I’m ok with him building the wall but can’t look away from the type rhetoric he uses to achieve his aim.  Words matter even for the guy who knows the best words

I’m not a great communicator I’m trying to figure things out, why the division is so… all or nothing. It something I’ve been observing that the division might not just be so much political but the philosophical question – Can the ends Justify the means.  Maybe Trump does need to break convention to get things done but that can be a dangerous game. What happens when the next guy that wants different things starts playing? What if breaking convention requires breaking the rule of law? I don’t know if Trump has done that, I think he likes to play on the edge, so its a fair concern.

Trump does cross ethical boundaries which is not a crime, may even be a good thing, and each of us can weight that as we will however between having to parse out his ‘truthful hyperbole’ and play of ethical boundaries/conventions… its hard. Trump makes it so dame hard to see what he’s trying to accomplish. Or maybe that's the intent.

Quote
So don't "agree with Trump," just realize he's on the right side of what needs to be done

There is so much noise. When you say what needs to be done, do you have a list of what that is. I really don’t know what he and his supporters want anymore.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 22, 2019, 10:48:10 AM
Quote
I agree with him pulling out of Syria but not the how.

I also agree with that move. I would prefer that we not create a vacuum, that before making the announcement we got some kind of agreements with Turkey and made clear any diplomatic consequences, possibly getting UN peacekeeping involved, not imply the Kurds a greater threat than ISIS by way of PKK, making it clear we are not indifferent to what happens on the border because it isn't our border...

On the other hand, maybe if no one trusts us to ally with us we'll achieve my isolationist and non-interventionist dream.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 22, 2019, 11:48:26 AM
Quote
I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics
I would agree, for alot of people the ends justify the means. The specifics or how doesn't matter

Well, I think you went past what I meant on that.  They care about about how something gets implemented, and Trump's been pretty good at following the law (notwithstanding what the media says), they don't care so much about the specifics of how he says it.  I think a lot of that is a legitimate reaction to the media lying so often about what is said.

I mean honestly, something like 70% of the country wanted the border enforced pre-Trump.  Democrats and Republicans alike.  That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?

Exactly what they did, with help from the media, declare the situation about racism and issue an alter call.  You oppose Trump - even if he's right about the border and enforcing the actual law - because he's a "racist" and you would be one too if you don't oppose him.  It's our existing laws that are being enforced.  It's your Congress that hasn't fixed them or allowed them to be enforced for 4 decades.  It's your Congress that has not funded them sufficiently to be enforced humanely for 4 decades.

Yet everyone who acts to enforce Congress's laws is a racist or facist (and Congress is the good guy?).   

Quote
Quote
labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.
Quote
And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

Then find it.

Calling out Trump for "truthful hyperbole" so that you can blame Trump for using the words, rather than the deliberate lie of misconstruing the words by the media annoys me.  Trump did not say Mexicans are criminals and rapists.  He did say that many criminals and rapists cross the borders, that was back when most of those crossing the border were in fact Mexican and many of the repeat crossers had extensive criminal histories (how could they not, when "enforcement" in the US has largely only deported criminals?).  Have you heard him say that about the current south American economic migrants?

Nope.  The media/DNC wants this to be a battle between "racists" and the "righteous" so that they can fundamentally shift the policy to a position that 70% of the country didn't want - and if you take out the loaded "racism" arguments still don't. 

Again, there has never been a single reason to prefer an illegal immigration system to a legal one.  If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 22, 2019, 11:57:55 AM
Quote
I don’t know if Trump has done that, I think he likes to play on the edge, so its a fair concern.
To be fair to Trump, his opponent gives the same impression.  So I think it was more about ethics than preventing bending of the law.

Quote
That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?
I gotta say, if these' "political elite" crafted this mind trap they are savants.  This is as close to perfect as it gets.  Because that sure as *censored* sounds like, "We gotta stop those Democrats so they don't taint our nations white purity!"

Not to mention it also makes the bizzaro assumption that the Republican party has absolutely nothing to offer non-whites.  Yikes!  I mean.  If there IS a cabal of "political elite" out there crafting this narrative, and you know, not just the whole shining beacon inspiring people to long for a better life here in our country, because... you know, we're awesome like that, (not to mention population / birth rate demographics), then those "elites" have earned their label.  They are mighty indeed.   ::)

Quote
If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?
My preferred method is penalties to the point of asset seizure for anyone employing illegals.  Then we can ramp up legal immigration when the need for those workers is painfully (economically) obvious.  The use of bigger and bigger sticks while the carrots are still left out and encouraged is reprehensible.  But both sides seem to be cool with it, because that's how our economy works!  Oh well.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 12:23:43 PM
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?  What new skill did they develop this cycle?  I don't remember thinking any former presidents were evil incarnate.

Ellen Degeneres felt compelled to make a statment about how this event (https://twitter.com/theellenshow/status/1181395164499070976) took place. I think it says a lot about the current political climate that she felt it even needed to be publicly addressed.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 12:40:56 PM
Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is. To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

This one again? This has been addressed by others multiple times already. That soundbite is out of context, and doesn't mean what you want to make it mean. But you clearly have your favored reality, enjoy the misery it creates.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 22, 2019, 12:45:50 PM
Quote
Ellen Degeneres felt compelled to make a statment about how this event took place. I think it says a lot about the current political climate that she felt it even needed to be publicly addressed.
You say this as if it was a threat to her that she had to address or lose dollars / status.  What happened was a chance encounter was leveraged for attention.  That says a lot more about the current media climate than it does about politics.    ::)
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 22, 2019, 12:48:35 PM
Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is. To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

This one again? This has been addressed by others multiple times already. That soundbite is out of context, and doesn't mean what you want to make it mean. But you clearly have your favored reality, enjoy the misery it creates.

Ok ok ok I get it - I should have used the word implying or insinuating vice labeling.  Trump never says what he says unless he says it. wink, wink, knowing smile.


Quote
Then find it.

Calling out Trump for "truthful hyperbole" so that you can blame Trump for using the words, rather than the deliberate lie of misconstruing the words by the media annoys me

Yes Trump has the best words, perfect, absolutely no possibility of failing to understand his meaning or intent.  "Truthful hyperbole is the best possible method of communicating and getting things done

You win, Your right about everything, how could I be so stupid
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 22, 2019, 12:57:25 PM
I’m done
I thought we were having a dialog about communication, but I used a bad example which triggered the usual response which I think proves my point.
 
The “left”, whatever that is, aren’t the only one that get stuck by being triggered – god I hate that I used that word. No communication is possible, conventions have been broken. Its all our nothing. 
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 01:41:03 PM
I’m done
I thought we were having a dialog about communication, but I used a bad example which triggered the usual response which I think proves my point.

You use a bad example which demonstrates you have already failed the "first test" on communication: You're unwilling to listen, or allow the "benefit of the doubt" while considering other factors. You've rendered your conclusion, and that's that.

Ok ok ok I get it - I should have used the word implying or insinuating vice labeling.  Trump never says what he says unless he says it. wink, wink, knowing smile.

You make it quite clear here that you already know what he and how he said it, and he meant it the way you think he meant it. Anybody who believes differently cannot see it for "the dog whistle it clearly is." As such you see no need to:
1) Give basic respect to the person disputing the claim.
2) Give benefit of the doubt. (Or simply agree to disagree)
3) Bother to listen.

With those three strikes, you're already out of the running for communication to happen.

As such:
The “left”, whatever that is, aren’t the only one that get stuck by being triggered – god I hate that I used that word. No communication is possible, conventions have been broken. Its all our nothing.

Only follows.

I understand that you think the (out of context) statement from Trump is a "dog whistle" and means something completely different from how I'm interpreting it. But at the same time, I'm seriously wondering if you've ever actually bothered to find the context in which that statement was made.

Which is rather remarkable, considering I believe the full text was made available here(or linked from here) at one point.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 22, 2019, 02:10:39 PM
Quote
I understand that you think the (out of context) statement from Trump is a "dog whistle" and means something completely different from how I'm interpreting it.
The question I have, is:  is this how you believe Trump meant it?  How YOU interpreting it, could just be another way of saying, "what I would like to believe he meant".  Or "this is how I have to rationalize it". 

As much as Trump bemoans the media, he loves it.  He plays it well.  It's where he lives and breaths.  In almost any other situation I would agree with the points you are making TheDeamon.  But the man is trolling the left.  He identifies buttons and pushes them.  He wants his opponents distracted and operating on constant outrage.  It keeps him (or at least his persona) firmly in the spotlight while things continue to get done.

He gives a wink and a nod to his extreme base while tweaking his extreme opponents, leaving those few still "in the middle" parsing out exactly what he said and in what context.  Either defending or at least questing if it's really as bad as all that. 

So how does someone being targeted by outrageous statements communicate with someone deaf to the dog whistles?  Do you just insist that the whistle noise must be imagined?  I mean, one group is barking and another group is whining and acting very agitated.  They both indicate the same thing caused their reaction. 

Is the advice to ignore it?  It's not "real" because YOU are sure he didn't mean it? 

If it was JUST the tiny sliver of hyper sensitive lefties out there pointing fingers, I'd be inclined to agree.  As I've said before, there is a growing portion on both sides of the red/blue divide that are spoiling for a fight.  They both heard something. 
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 22, 2019, 02:15:36 PM
If I told you that my neighbors were "people who have lots of problems who sell drugs, they're involved with crime. There are rapists. But some are good people". What kind of impression would you have about my neighborhood?

Original quote: "They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Of course he is meaning to disparage illegal migrants, although in the speech he certainly didn't distinguish illegal. He was referring to "more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. "

And the final piece of the whole thing:

"They're not sending you. They're not sending you."

Clearly to me, and to a lot of other people, he's describing everyone in Latin America as undesirable and inferior to his audience.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 02:18:20 PM
My take on it is Trump knew the MSM would take it for a "dog whistle" but didn't actually mean it that way.

Trump seems to hold to "there is no such thing as bad publicity" and throwing a dog whistle out there to rile up the media, (if the trivial number of racists go for it--whatever, they don't matter) and then use how the media reacts to it as ground to complain about a hostile press, ad nausea.

I think a lot of what Trump did was calculated to get a disproportionate and inappropriate media response to his statement. In that instance, it was a success, it just had other ramifications which Trump didn't bother to think through or give much consideration towards.

I'm pretty certain he's an insensitive jack*** in almost every respect, but I haven't seen anything to make me think he's actually a racist.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: NobleHunter on October 22, 2019, 02:21:09 PM
Because you assume every time he says something racist he's just playing to a crowd?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 22, 2019, 02:22:14 PM
Rightleft22, I'm not trying to pick on you.  Really, please don't take offense at the back and forth above.  I just followed up on this because it's 100% about how we no longer have common facts, which inhibits from moving onto the actual debate - the pros and cons of current immigration laws and how they could be improved - by spending all of our effort on debating whether or not Trump has proven by "his own" words that he's a rascist.

This is a debate we are being fed by people who don't want us to actually debate the real issues.  They have their preferred results and we are no longer allowed to disagree.

My point on this one was exactly that.  The words are not there.  When you're arguing with the "other" side they can go and see the words that are not there and get outraged at the falsity of the claim.  However, it may be equally "clear" to the otherside that the implication is there and people are ignoring it and they get outraged at the falsity of the claim.

Would you think Trump said all Mexicans are criminals if the media had downplayed the issue?  If they had instead pointed out that he's worked with people of all ancestries, and everytime someone tried to make the assertion they had dismissed it?  Don't consider it in the abstract, do you consider Obama to be a racist based on his participation in a racist church?  Do you remember how the media in fact did the exact opposite?  They pretended that the Obama's probably missed that day of sermons, and that notwithstanding their close personal relationship with the pastor they were unaware.  And then they went further and tore down anyone that questioned it.

You really think that kind of bias doesn't show up in how we view the world?

Ok ok ok I get it - I should have used the word implying or insinuating vice labeling.  Trump never says what he says unless he says it. wink, wink, knowing smile.

Maybe, I'm not fully convinced that was the case either.  The Mexican government, prior to Trump, made almost zero efforts to prevent that kind of border abuse.  It's not surprising, organized crime is far more powerful in Mexico and control of the border is it's lifeblood.  Mexican government officials have been killed for less.  Are you really certain that the problem of hardened criminals crossing the border didn't seem like a win win for the Mexican government?  At least until the US imposed consequences?

Why exactly do we have criminals that have been repeatedly deported?  If you want to claim they aren't Mexico's problem, tell me how you think we'd react to Americans that repeatedly went into a foreign country and murdered people, and were deported back to the US.

Quote
Yes Trump has the best words, perfect, absolutely no possibility of failing to understand his meaning or intent.  "Truthful hyperbole is the best possible method of communicating and getting things done

Like I said, our politicians exaggerate and lie in virtually every public appearence.  Why is it that every sentence of Trump's gets the biased intense fact checking?  What really makes him different?

Is he really some special kind of evil?  Then why exactly was he admired - with literally the exact same personality - for decades?  Why was his show so popular?

Trump is a threat, primarily to the establishment.  He's a bigger threat to the Republicans than the Democrats.  He's utterly demolished their do nothing politics and pretty much demonstrated to their voters that they were all talk.  Sure the Democrats hate him too, but there's a reason that the deep staters (who face no elections but who are massively connected to both sides) are all working against him.  There's a reason, you have secret leakers, there's a reason that people claim the Senate would remove him if they could do it in secret.

Contrary to "popular" belief it isn't because he's especially vile, or "not Presidential," or even corrupt, it's because he's not on their team.  I think the biggest political divide is probably around whose team people think he really is on.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 02:35:23 PM
Because you assume every time he says something racist he's just playing to a crowd?

Every "racist" thing I've seen claimed to be uttered by him tends to have a non-racist skew that can be placed on it without any meaningful effort. And most of those statement are allegations, often from anonymous sources, which makes the veracity of the claim dubious to start with.

Most would be in keeping with his being a insensitive jack*** who generally doesn't care about how he is perceived.

Of course, I could have missed one of those racist statements he has been alleged to have made.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: NobleHunter on October 22, 2019, 02:43:33 PM
I'm boggled at how someone who supposedly "says it like it is" or is supposed to be a plain speaker, needs have skew applied to his words so often.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 02:48:50 PM
I'm boggled at how someone who supposedly "says it like it is" or is supposed to be a plain speaker, needs have skew applied to his words so often.

Even the racist interpretation in a lot of cases requires "skew" to make it a racist statement to start with.

Insensitive? Yes. Racist? Not so clear cut.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 22, 2019, 03:06:59 PM
Quote
That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?
I gotta say, if these' "political elite" crafted this mind trap they are savants.  This is as close to perfect as it gets.  Because that sure as *censored* sounds like, "We gotta stop those Democrats so they don't taint our nations white purity!"

Well again, it sounds that way to you because you're operating on a completely different "baseline" of facts.

In a world where the parties have decisive data on the politic consequences broken down by every single racial and economic metric, the policy of illegal immigration has known demographic benefits for the Democrats.  It has nothing to do with keeping our nation pure.

We could flip the script.  End illegal immigration and maximize immigration from the same countries, same people, based on merit and hard work.  The numbers in that scenario don't play out remotely as well for the Democrats.

Why?

First, illegal immigrants are poor and vulnerable, in a way that legal immigrants of the same nationality would not be.  They are dependent on the welfare state in a way that legal immigrants would not be.  Why does that matter?  They are relying on their children, who are likely to be citizens, to protect them by changing policies in favor of their circumstances.  That's why Obama pushed both DACA and DAPA, to try and buy and cement that future loyalty.

Second, they compete with the economic lower class by undercutting wages.  This drags wages for all workers down, pulls more voting citizens into the lower class and dependent class.  Democrats bread and butter is in lower class and dependent voters.  They have no incentive to do anything but increase this voting pool.  Legal immigration does none of this, the immigrants are not undercutting legal wages, because they earn them.  Legal immigrants are not flooding the unskilled labor markets.

This isn't a mystery to the Democratic elite.  Not sure why it continues to be a mystery to the voters.

It has NOTHING to do with "tainting" some racial mix, and everything about demonizing people for enforcing laws that will impair Democratic efforts to ensure that the correct socio-economic blocks keep increasing.

Quote
Not to mention it also makes the bizzaro assumption that the Republican party has absolutely nothing to offer non-whites.

It actually doesn't do that either.  It's just an acknowledgement that those in need of handouts vote for the hand out party rather than the economic success party, and that immigrants who come on a merit based system might have a different choice.

In reality, I think 3 generations from now, the grandkids of those same Democratic voters blocks will be more Republican, hence the need to keep importing them.

Quote
Quote
If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?
My preferred method is penalties to the point of asset seizure for anyone employing illegals.

Okay, but why?  Are you going to deport the illegals they employed?  Or is the goal to put the illegals permanently on to welfare and social support by making them unemployable?  Or is the goal to do so until they can be made legal?

All of that is like treating the symptom and leaving the illness alone.  Why not require proof of citizenship when accessing services?  How is that any less designed to fail?

Quote
Then we can ramp up legal immigration when the need for those workers is painfully (economically) obvious.  The use of bigger and bigger sticks while the carrots are still left out and encouraged is reprehensible.  But both sides seem to be cool with it, because that's how our economy works!  Oh well.

The use of sticks only works if it's comprehensive.  Nothing that has been proposed is comprehensive.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 22, 2019, 03:15:19 PM
Quote
Why is it that every sentence of Trump's gets the biased intense fact checking?  What really makes him different? Is he really some special kind of evil?

In my opinion its because of his communication method/style/philosophy. You may be able to see past the hyperbole, but I think its understandable that many have problems doing so.  It’s as arrogant to suggest that people who have problems parsing Trump are wrong to even question it as it is to suggest that people who can look past it are wrong.  Even you it appears were triggered by words like “labelled immigrants as” and assumed my intent. It is understandable I think then that others are triggered by Trumps use of language.
 
Trump is special in that I think only he can get away with using ‘truthful hyperbole’ in the way he does. I have seen other politicians attempt it and fail bad. (The guy in the Philippines is pretty good at it) Can you imagine the stink if Obama used this form of communication to get his ideas across? Does that make him evil, no. Does it make him dangerous yes, especially as it concerns dialog.

Quote
Contrary to "popular" belief it isn't because he's especially vile, or "not Presidential," or even corrupt, it's because he's not on their team
Like I said, our politicians exaggerate and lie in virtually every public appearance

These types of all in composing, no room for a middle ground, or good faith close off dialog.  I don’t have to listen because all politicians lie and I only disagree because Trump isn’t on my team….

Does Trump communication style help him break conventions you want to see broken (still not sure what those are) and get the job done or does it get in the way?  I suspect its both.

Quote
You use a bad example which demonstrates you have already failed the "first test" on communication: You're unwilling to listen
That is quite the assumption. My intent was to discuses the problem of the method Trump communicant not to point out if I think Trump is a racist or whatever. 
Seems we both suck at listening.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 22, 2019, 03:20:42 PM
Quote
Second, they compete with the economic lower class by undercutting wages.  This drags wages for all workers down, pulls more voting citizens into the lower class and dependent class.  Democrats bread and butter is in lower class and dependent voters.  They have no incentive to do anything but increase this voting pool.  Legal immigration does none of this, the immigrants are not undercutting legal wages, because they earn them.  Legal immigrants are not flooding the unskilled labor markets.

The most cynical possible view, is it not? How is that different than applying the most cynical possible view to Trump?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 22, 2019, 03:45:41 PM
I’m done
I thought we were having a dialog about communication, but I used a bad example which triggered the usual response which I think proves my point.
 
The “left”, whatever that is, aren’t the only one that get stuck by being triggered – god I hate that I used that word. No communication is possible, conventions have been broken. Its all our nothing.

Is that what's happening? Or has the media and political lanscape *so* muddied the waters that the population in general is thoroughly confused and disinformed about what is and isn't reality? In my opinion your frustration here is entirely warranted, and is being directed at the wrong target.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 22, 2019, 04:56:02 PM
Quote
Is that what's happening?

I can only go by my own experiences. I find it incredibly difficult to parse Trump. It requires a great deal of self awareness not to react to 'triggers' and not respond.
You think your responding but your not.

take how the words "labeled Immigrants"  derails the dialog about immigration to being about Trump character
You can argue that Trump did not label all immigrants as murders and that his intent was that we need strong immigration laws and methods to prevent immigrants that are criminals from entering into the US

Ok I agree

However he does not communicate that way. His tone, mannerisms, and hyperbole, IMO, confused that message. A message that if communicated clearly everyone might agree with. In this case I would say the hyperbole got in the way yet because its repeated is international.

A reasonable question IMO is to ask if the repetition of method means it is intentional and if so to what ends. Is their purpose other then immigration law to the method?
Maybe there is maybe theirs not, its just the way he communicates his ideas. However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended. Its not just a "completely different "baseline" of facts". Its a problem of communication method.

To be be frustrated and angry about that is no different then being angry and frustrated with those that have no issue with the method.
Either way the method presents a problem for dialog about the issues we say we want to talk about.

Your suggesting I should direct the frustration and blame at the "media" and political landscape, however I have no influence over the "media" or political landscape. I'm communicating here. Its happening here!

That suggestion is also negates the source. Unless your arguing that there is no issue with the way Trump communicates everyone just needs to figure it out.
OK
But removing the politics. If half the people have a problem with a method of communication should we not look at the method?

Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 22, 2019, 05:06:41 PM
That was a particularly depressing lens to see Democratic party through.  I'll clue you in, but you probably won't believe me.  Some of us, no, MOST of us, actually DO give a *censored*, and aren't putting on an act to keep 'our team' in power.  I'm not sure what for... if the policies we peruse are largely all self serving and insincere?
Quote
Okay, but why?
  Because without a realistic hope of employment without going through official channels the draw of entering and living "illegally" goes away.  My sneaking suspicion is that within 2-5 years of strict enforcement, the businesses who previously exploited these people will be begging the lawmakers to fix our immigration (or at least work visa) programs.  If that requires a bit of welfare and social support within that time-frame, I think it's worth it.   
Quote
All of that is like treating the symptom and leaving the illness alone.
It's the exact opposite of that.  Trump tried to frame it as if the choice to come here could lead to unimaginable sorrow for your family.  Unfortunately it can STILL lead to amazing opportunities for a better life.  We are incentivizing breaking the law.  You are hung up on providing services to these people.  What people if they know when they get here they cannot get a job unless they enter legally. 

Quote
Nothing that has been proposed is comprehensive.
Indeed.

Quote
However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended.
It's worse than that.  A good deal of them don't wonder at all.  They "know" what was intended.  That's where the different set of "facts" line comes into play.  It's not ALL bull, though most of the time that just means Trump is making poop up again, in this case it really is about people hearing two entirely different messages when he speaks.  Or, more accurately, three different messages.  The middle and the extremes on both sides.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: TheDrake on October 22, 2019, 05:32:40 PM
Quote
In the post-Sept. 11 atmosphere, ICE, then a new agency, set out an ambitious and opportunistic agenda. Titled “Endgame,” the strategic plan for ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal set as its goal 100 percent “removal” of all “removable aliens.” Grandparents and children, business owners and colleagues, students and caregivers: All became the targets of ICE.

But Operation Endgame did not explain how punishing and deporting millions of longtime residents would make the United States safer or somehow address the threat of terrorist violence. It simply asserted that the result of these deportations would be “enhanced homeland security” — an ill-defined goal that seemed to answer the public’s fear with aggression — and more fear — rather than sound policy.

Wow, that sounds like a Trump policy. Instead it was GWB.

How'd he get away with all that? Was the media kinder and gentler? Were the libruls more tolerant?

Nope. First, he set apart his policy by promising to increase the amount of legal immigration, making it clear that he was against illegal immigration, not immigration in general.

He said things like this:

Quote
The American people should not have to choose between a welcoming society and a lawful society. We can have both at the same time.

I wish I could find a full transcript of his Tucson speech, but I speculate that he led off talking about how our country was built by immigrants, owed a debt to them, etc. He definitely faced some backlash from ACLU and other usual suspects, but it didn't become a national frenzy.

It is the tried and true "crap sandwich" approach to communicating. Say something people will widely agree with and feel good about. Lay down the thing they probably aren't going to like. Then wrap it up with a desire to come together and solve problems. Trump leaves out the bread and just gives you the crap with no warmup.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 22, 2019, 05:47:22 PM
Quote
However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended.
It's worse than that.  A good deal of them don't wonder at all.  They "know" what was intended.  That's where the different set of "facts" line comes into play.  It's not ALL bull, though most of the time that just means Trump is making poop up again, in this case it really is about people hearing two entirely different messages when he speaks.  Or, more accurately, three different messages.  The middle and the extremes on both sides.
[/quote]

I see, I'm assuming people, at least on this site, are aware of a problem/challenge with the communication method.
Without the benefit of the doubt that Trumps communication method is a challenge, at least for some, or denying its a problem at all, or blaming the "media" for it, is going to make dialog difficult
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 22, 2019, 05:52:13 PM
Your suggesting I should direct the frustration and blame at the "media" and political landscape, however I have no influence over the "media" or political landscape. I'm communicating here. Its happening here!

It's not that complicated. You can either rail against other people who have been taught that whatever they feel is reality, or you can rail against those who taught them. I see good reason to try to make everyone around us better if possible, but if you want to blame someone, "people are crazy!" isn't going to help you. A more productive version (IMO) might be "our political institutions have let us down!" or maybe "the parties are corrupt!" And these types of complaints WILL help you, whereas railing at 'whoever' won't. Or at least, it *should* help you. It's possible that it also won't, but that would be a sign of even worse things than you think.

Quote
That suggestion is also negates the source. Unless your arguing that there is no issue with the way Trump communicates everyone just needs to figure it out.

rightleft, I think you're focusing too much on Trump. Yes, he's newsworthy, but he didn't invent confusion tactics in the public sphere, he just showed us that there is no place in America free of them. The mental combat going on against lucidity was going on before, and Trump is a symptom not a cause.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 23, 2019, 10:40:26 AM
Quote
It's not that complicated

You misunderstand me.  My concern is not Trump its about communication. They are related in that Trump communication method is what bothers me.
What I am attempting to talk about is the communication method which seems impossible because any example becomes political. Which proves my point.
Parsing "Truthful Hyperbole" is difficult as it requires a great deal of self knowledge without getting triggered and missing the message. This triggering is happeing on all sides which is demonstrable on this forum.

Trumps comments on immigration is a good example as half the population will hear his words and cry foul and the other half won't see anything to be concerned about.
The issue of immigration becomes lost as we argue about what did he really say. We can blame the media for making the parsing more difficult however the responsibility belongs to each of us. I don't want to blame anyone.

The frustration I'm having is that instead of questioning the method in good faith we can't talk about it at all as its seems to be on political attack. A suckers choice IMO
(having to chose the ends or the means as either or is also a suckers choice)

Its obvious I'm not able to communicate my intentions so will step back. I obviously do not like Trump but its not political. To me their is a difference but maybe theirs not.



Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 23, 2019, 11:19:25 AM
Trumps comments on immigration is a good example as half the population will hear his words and cry foul and the other half won't see anything to be concerned about.
The issue of immigration becomes lost as we argue about what did he really say.

Do you not see the conflict of interest inherent in discussions like this? People stand to materially gain by taking one position or the other. All things are not equal. Because the issues are politicized, taking a position even on what something means ends up either bolstering one party or the other, and thus gets reduced to "I can't agree with you because we would lose power if I do so." That strikes me as being an artificial situation that is avoidable, but avoiding it requires (as a country) Americans taking certain steps. You're right that the issues themselves often get lost, and I don't like it any better than you do. But the reason is because the issues end up as pawns in a literal power struggle. That's a systemic problem.

Quote
We can blame the media for making the parsing more difficult however the responsibility belongs to each of us. I don't want to blame anyone.

Players are mostly going to play the game according to what seems like the rules. Only a few people will ignore the 'intended play style' and will push the boundaries of it (some for the better, and some for the worse). If the ecosystem strongly encourages people to fight each other to gain dominance, most will do that. And it's not even because they're power-hungry, but rather because the tendency will be to unconsciously give way to the current pulling them and go along with it. Most people are much more go-with-the-flow than they think they are. There are good sides to this trait, but a bad side is they can be pulled in a bad direction. You can't really blame them for that; you certainly can blame the people intentionally pulling them. I don't see why you wouldn't, frankly.

Quote
Its obvious I'm not able to communicate my intentions so will step back. I obviously do not like Trump but its not political. To me their is a difference but maybe theirs not.

You're doing fine, but if you are making a mistake it's thinking that these matters are so easy to clarify that one or two quick statements should be enough for everyone to know what you're thinking. This is the problem with soundbite culture: you think a short statement of intent somehow actually communicates intent. For someone to *really* know what they're thinking they would have to have lived your life and share all of your thoughts. All we can hope to do is give people an inkling of what's on our mind, and hope even more than we're somewhat successful. That's actually pretty tough! Underestimating how difficult communication actually is will make you more frustrated.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 23, 2019, 01:28:34 PM
Quote
Do you not see the conflict of interest inherent in discussions like this? People stand to materially gain by taking one position or the other.

I see it. Its why I was attempting to address it.
If we can't find a way to communicate past that conflict of interest intellectual honest dialog can't be possible, or at least it becomes even more difficult.  The danger is that its becomes 'might makes right' and or 'loudest makes right'. Or as has been argued narrative = truth which may be how it is in this moment in time but is intellectually dishonest, narrative is not truth. By conceding to to conflict of interest and truth and not pushing back we become what we hate.

Quote
you think a short statement of intent somehow actually communicates intent

I do not think that at all. I know how hard communication is. How 8 bites of information representing a single word is 'unpacked' into thousands of bits of information. Think of the word 'God' and how people unpack that.  Its one of the reasons I dislike the communication method of 'truthful hyperbole' so much. Reasonable people on all sides are going to unpack hyperbole differently and get each other wrong.

As long as we surrender to the sucker choices in this regard I feel we all tend to make nothing will change other then the division becoming firmer
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: D.W. on October 23, 2019, 02:06:52 PM
Quick aside, sorry:
Can anyone give me an example of another habitual/regular user of "Truthful Hyperbole"?   (A phrase I always felt was just a polite way of saying, "Ignore his spewing of BS, he's telling a story, not saying anything you are suppose to take at face value.")
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 23, 2019, 02:23:33 PM
Truthful Hyperbole was coined as a method by Trump. Its been around before that ofcourse however suspect most people never heard the term before. Trump, as he writes in the art of the deal, became a master when he realized is use.

I would argue that Rodrigo Duterte communication method is close
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Seriati on October 23, 2019, 02:29:10 PM
This thread is the first time I bothered to look up truthful hyperbole.  I'm kind of annoyed now.  It sounds to me like the phrase referred - in the art of the deal - to things like calling the new Trump tower the "biggest and the best" when it objectively was not the biggest, and best is a matter of opinion.  Is that the case?

It seems that it's being used -now- to refer to a belief that Trump is okay with lying completely.  The context on it though seemed to be that it was about selling everything as larger than life - which is literally the Trump brand.

I'm not remotely convinced that Trump is using hyperbole in many of these cases.  He's using the truth and others are drawing the hyperbolic inference.  It would help me if you clarified what you actually mean.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Kasandra on October 23, 2019, 02:53:20 PM
It's been a blast from the past visiting with you folks the past few weeks, but I'm full up on open-minded civil conversation for the foreseeable future.  Somebody send me an email if any of the usual suspects decide maybe Trump should be impeached after all.  I'll send them a box of chocolates.  But, Trump may declare martial law and disband Congress before things get that far, in which case send a box of chocolates to me in the gulag.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Fenring on October 23, 2019, 03:02:18 PM
If we can't find a way to communicate past that conflict of interest intellectual honest dialog can't be possible, or at least it becomes even more difficult.

You're going back to the idea that "we" need to find a way to bypass the conflict of interest, but that's exactly my point: that's like saying let's bypass reality. If there factually is a conflict of interest then it *will* affect everything. There is no way to bypass that truism through force of will, any more than when people are being washed down a rushing river and the odd strong swimmer can swim to the shore, you should argue that "we need to stop being swept away by the current." What can be done might be to dam up the river, or to construct a boat or something (using the analogy). But telling the people going with the current to do better just isn't helpful. That's how currents work.

This is why I occasionally try to redirect red vs blue conversations to issues like lobbying and campaign finance, because those are flow-governing realities that trickle down to the rest of politics, and therefore to everyday conversation. When discussing FOX vs CNN and who's worse, I sometimes try to bring it back to the generalization that these are both companies with goals other than helping people, even if they might serve different masters. I keep feeling from your posts that there's a vibe of "why are people so crazy" or sometimes "it's hopeless, truth is dead" and stuff like that. Well maybe people have been driven crazy, but usually when that literally happens you need to establish a safer environment to begin treatment. That's the first step, anyhow, rather than trying to reason people out of their craze. And regarding truth being dead, that is maybe a larger issue which IMO has a technological component to it, but in any case I do think there are steps that could be taken to repair these domains, but they lie in challenging the structure we've got right now. Status quo in the system as it is will cause things - all things being equal - to continue in this direction. I say 'all things being equal' because it's always possible that some catastrophe or another unpredictable event could create a dramatic shift in public perception.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: JoshuaD on October 23, 2019, 03:06:28 PM
I'll miss having you here, Scifibum. Maybe you'll find your way back at some time in the future.
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: rightleft22 on October 23, 2019, 05:44:46 PM
Quote
You're going back to the idea that "we" need to find a way to bypass the conflict of interest, but that's exactly my point: that's like saying let's bypass reality. If there factually is a conflict of interest then it *will* affect everything. There is no way to bypass that truism through force of will, any more than when people are being washed down a rushing river and the odd strong swimmer can swim to the shore, you should argue that "we need to stop being swept away by the current." What can be done might be to dam up the river, or to construct a boat or something (using the analogy). But telling the people going with the current to do better just isn't helpful. That's how currents work.

Not sure I follow. Maybe its semantic because I think were aiming for the same thing.

When I say we, I mean that to make a change each of us needs to take responsibility of our own conduct in dialog. I also mean us as in this forum. If we really want intellectually honest debate, we need to be honest with ourselves when were using wide generalizations and thinking we know what the other person intention is.  If we can’t have honest dialog here its not going to happen in the wild.

Maybe that's naive however the statement “Be the change you want to see” is a truth not a choice, the "car goes where the eyes go”. The tendency is to create what we fear and were doing a great job at that.

“There is no way to bypass that truism through force of will” true, swimming against the current won’t work..  If your heading for rapids one must prepare the body, feet (foundation) first and adjust course in small ways that you can. We are, I think, both saying we need to stop being swept away, blindly tumbling over every rock that comes along.  Even in strong currents there are eddies where the current slows, places to rest even. We, us in this forum, should keep and eye out for them.

Quote
need to establish a safer environment to begin treatment. That's the first step, anyhow, rather than trying to reason people out of their craze

I agree, for effective dialog a safe environment is a requirement. If it is not reason, what do we turn to to make it safe?
Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: Pete at Home on October 23, 2019, 11:55:07 PM
Quote
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left
Example of a statement that get's in the way of dialog. The left accused as being to easily offended while the right accuse of intentionally using language to offend and distract. We end up taking about the politics of 'offense' rather then the issue at hand.

The thing is people on the board here have been surprisingly civil in the past few years, especially if you compare it to the years prior to that. Granted, we're a smaller community now, but all the same most conversations at most reach a level of "mild taunting sarcasm" as their boiling point. Sure, that's still not ideal, but it's quite a ways away from people outright calling each other out, insulting each other based on personal secrets, and using words like "evil" and "despicable" in relation to each other. I'm really happy that sort of thing is gone. So despite the fact that many conversations do end in two sides squarely refusing to agree AT ALL with the other side, perhaps more so than in the past, it never gets nasty, so I don't really buy that things are so offensive that people can't take it anymore. I think it's more an issue that people increasingly can't stand it when others disagree with them *completely*. I don't just mean "well I sort of disagree with you on that" but rather more like "you are totally wrong and what you say is the opposite of reality." This type of statement seems unpalatable for many people now (and I'm not referring to scifi, who has always seemed reasonable).

I don't know if this affects his decision (feel free to correct me, brother) but over the years SciFi has gone from being more or less the political center of prominent Ornerians to its fringe left, while his views have not changed, remaining more or less mainstream left in national politics.   The Trump "Issue" (which I think I can sum up in Begalese: "It's the Courtesy, Stupid").. has ...

Ah forget it.  I'll miss you SciFi.

Title: Re: hey moderator
Post by: cherrypoptart on October 24, 2019, 11:18:17 AM
We should have a tribute to the fallen. I'm raising a cup (of coffee) in remembrance. This is just the start of the list. Feel free to add. Some left on their own. Some were taken from us. All are missed. Any would be welcomed back with open arms.

Daruma. Everard. Quato. Scott Stream. KnightEnder.