Author Topic: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?  (Read 110594 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #300 on: January 14, 2020, 03:25:44 PM »
Whenever I leave, however, the quality of writing and argumentation degrades horribly. 

 ;D

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #301 on: January 14, 2020, 03:36:00 PM »
I'm not so sure what's echo-chamberish on Ornery for the most part. I think there are some issues we agree on more than others. Some groupings of posters tend to converge on one side of the political fence or another if it's a right/left topic, but it's always been that way here. As far as persecution complex goes, I actually do think we're entering into a new age of the American people persecuting each other, very literally. I don't just mean giving flack, but rather trying to stamp out a way of life. As Grant mentioned, this isn't an Ornery thing, and what's nice here is no one seems to try to suggest that the other side's position is unacceptable. I also think that learning to tolerate (rigid) disagreement is an important life skill.

That being said it can also be frustrating to feel like the other person in the discussion is impenetrable to reason and already believes they know everything worth knowing. But this too seems to me an artifact of a culture where losing the social game means your side losing the political game, which is money and power. It trickles down to the bottom where admitting the other side may have a point can legitimately lead to losing political momentum for your causes. It's a problem.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #302 on: January 14, 2020, 05:18:21 PM »
Well I think it's really a derivative of no longer agreeing on common facts.  It's one thing to argue what a percentage change  in some statistic means and whether it's a result of policy x or in spite of policy x.  The "debates" now are literally about disputing that the other sides facts.  Its the ultimate in appeals to authority, where both sides package convenient "authorities" with less respect for truth and more for outcome.

For example, I find it frustrating that no matter how many of the "Trump lies" from the Washington Post list are shown to not be lies, the list keeps getting referred to as a fact.  I find myself disputing statements not because they are something the poster actually cares to argue as substance, but because they want to engage in a poisoning the well fallacy for some other claim.

Or one could look at the impeachment.  Schiff literally stated the evidence was clear, and it seems at least some believe he was accurate in that statement, yet I see nothing but an inference that is largely seeing what one wants to see.  The only actual facts don't show it, yet we still see people literally write out that Trump "admitted" it.  Not one witness - zero - testified to the 2020 election interference claim, yet that too is assumed. 

Or how about this one - the IG report on FISA abuse found that the abuse was so endemic that it had to have been unbelievable incompetence or bias, but found no written admission of bias.  That has now become "found no bias" as a short hand even on Fox.  The facts say one thing, the "story" now says something else.  How do we make conclusions about justice or fairness when people won't even agree about what happened?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #303 on: January 14, 2020, 05:27:40 PM »
I love that the reaction to "make sure the person you're punching is really a Nazi" is "you're going to label everyone you dislike a Nazi." Especially from someone who seems to be okay with invading a country and then calling anyone who resists a terrorist.

You're getting lost in the weeds on some of this by playing definition games.

The French Resistance in WW2 was to some engaged in acts of terrorism, at least if you asked a German, most people being objective about it would also have to agree that some Resistance attacks were in essence Terror attacks. Bombing a night club frequented by Nazis? Totally legit, right? Not at all comparable to Muslims local to an area deciding to bomb a nightclub that caters to decadent westerners in Indonesia...

 But that isn't to say everything the Resistance did was terrorism, very far from it.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq on the other hand? ISIS/ISIL? They were there for the terrorism and the recruiting potential. They didn't give a bleep about the welfare of the people living in Iraq.

Did they potentially recruit members who fought with them solely because they were some of the few capable of doing damage to the occupiers? Sure, but that doesn't make them anything close to a resistance effort as most would frame it.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #304 on: January 14, 2020, 06:54:22 PM »
Targeting Uniformed soldiers? Arguably not terrorism.  Hell, man, that takes out actual occupiers with guns from your streets. I say not terrorism period.   Your middle eastern example is more like the Pulse nightclub shooting.

But the resistance also targeted homes of non-combatant collaborators which was terrorism unambiguously.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 06:58:06 PM by Pete at Home »