US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

[Centrist Simon Steele]

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I am not a moderate or centrist, I'm a pragmatist. Just because I want something doesn't mean I'm going to go all out for it if I also know there's no chance of it happening. It's a realistic approach to politics, hence the prior comment about things sounding good at parties, but having no chance of ever happening. 

And no, I define purity as if you're not down for the most liberal causes, you're not a real liberal. Do you really want the Democratic party to mirror the behavior of the Republican party, because that's what's happen here?

And so here it is, the no true Scotsman rearing its ugly head. You use purity to dismiss purity. 

Also, middle ground. 

And, who is accusing anyone of not being a real liberal?

The point of the podcast was to illuminate how you (in this case) are defining purity to stop valid criticism. That definition will change, no doubt, when you need it to.

[Jace, Extat]

Dawg you call everyone who doesn't lick Bernie's asshole a moderate like it's the most hateful slur you can bring yourself to bare.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Dawg you call everyone who doesn't lick Bernie's asshole a moderate like it's the most hateful slur you can bring yourself to bare.

Whenever you say dawg I picture you as Randy Jackson.  It's quite enjoyable.

[sologdin]

e can't have rational discussions with the opposing side

this can happen, with some rhetorical discipline: some sort of stoic/buddhist demeanor that avoids passion and recalls that one may have beliefs, but one's beliefs are one's self--a critical distance that estranges the policy preferences a trump voter is certain to mock and distort. 

for instance, i have a trump-voting aunt and uncle, both boomers, high school only, fox news addicted, very religious, but lifelong democrat union members until 2016. they call me for a recent natal anniversary but immediately start in about trump: you're not voting for biden are you he has dementia.  also 'biden is a puppet of the radical leftists, biden wants socialism, biden is in the pocket of china, biden will abolish the police, biden will take away your doctors'--all the cliches of rightwing crazy. they did the same thing in 2016: you're not voting for hilary are you she should be in prison.  i failed to get their attention in 2016 because i argued personality--a non-starter, turning their insults back at trump, to which they are impervious.  arguing personality is therefore arguing the matter on the ground chosen by the enemy. 

in 2020, the answer was to choose the ground of contention and reply with: 'i don't care about personality, but i disagree with all of trump's policies, so let me explain.'  they at least listened after taking a moment to calm down.  it really is a pedagogical moment--trump voters are like children throwing a tantrum; one needs to be the adult who can bend like a reed in the wind of their bluster and then explain the policy distinctions without becoming personal. this means accepting incredulous personal insults and mockery--they are nothing if not smug in their deliberate indifference to the real. doubtful that they will vote biden, though i troubled my aunt's support of trump on a policy basis enough that she claimed she will write me in for president when she votes in ohio--so that's a small win.

i had a similar discussion with a trump-voter in my office--there, i conceded that i'd like to see what trump's policies would result in if he had eight unobstructed years--that this would be a true test of those policies, at which point we would all have an informed view of their quality.  of course my internal prediction is that they'd result in something similar to armageddon, but no need to tell him that.  this rhetorical concession opened a space for him to discuss policy, rather than the normal role call of abusive insults based in personality, and mere name-calling of candidates, and redbaiting caricatures of actual democratic policy preferences--a safe space, as it were, for a trump voter.  they mock this notion, but trump-voting rightwingers are the most fragile snowflakes in the history of the world.  reassuring them is part of the pedagogical process--and there's a reason for their fragility (not just in diangelo's meaning), as they are watching all that is solid melt into air.  it is thus an emotional time for them--even if that solidity is fictional and the melting is a good thing for mostly everyone.  i more or less convinced the guy that medicare for all is not biden's policy, but that it would have been a good thing for this trump voter, who went without health insurance for years until he aged into medicare coverage, primarily because he could never afford to enroll in an ERISA plan with any employer, even while paying payroll taxes. 

it's a mess--they are cultists, but they can be broken of the cultic mind control.  it may be amusing to insult rightwingers, but it is much more satisfying to lead them out of error and potentially welcome them into civilized society.

 

[A True Kaniggit]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Whenever you say dawg I picture you as Randy Jackson.  It's quite enjoyable.

Has anyone ever seen @Jace, Basilissa and Randy Jackson in the same room?

[S John]

3 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Has anyone ever seen @Jace, Basilissa and Randy Jackson in the same room?

Surely Jace is more likely to be Simon than Randy?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Dawg you call everyone who doesn't lick Bernie's asshole a moderate like it's the most hateful slur you can bring yourself to bare.

It's called rimming. What do you think feel the Bern meant?

It's the side effect of peeing with an STD. You really do feel the burn.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, sologdin said:

it really is a pedagogical moment--trump voters are like children throwing a tantrum; one needs to be the adult who can bend like a reed in the wind of their bluster and then explain the policy distinctions without becoming personal.

The emerging consensus over the past ~25-20 years in political psychology is that emotional appeals are more effective in activating both persuasion and participation compared to rational appeals when it comes to political behavior.  See here.  I'm too lazy to look up the citations right now, but there's also a strain of research consistently showing that the more politically interested/informed a respondent is, the more likely they are to react to political stimuli emotionally.  This is the mechanism that drives affective polarization and negative partisanship.

[argonak]

12 minutes ago, sologdin said:

e can't have rational discussions with the opposing side

this can happen, with some rhetorical discipline: some sort of stoic/buddhist demeanor that avoids passion and recalls that one may have beliefs, but one's beliefs are one's self--a critical distance that estranges the policy preferences a trump voter is certain to mock and distort. 

it's a mess--they are cultists, but they can be broken of the cultic mind control.  it may be amusing to insult rightwingers, but it is much more satisfying to lead them out of error and potentially welcome them into civilized society.

 

I salute you for trying.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

The emerging consensus over the past ~25-20 years in political psychology is that emotional appeals are more effective in activating both persuasion and participation compared to rational appeals when it comes to political behavior.  See here.  I'm too lazy to look up the citations right now, but there's also a strain of research consistently showing that the more politically interested/informed a respondent is, the more likely they are to react to political stimuli emotionally.  This is the mechanism that drives affective polarization and negative partisanship.

I'll have to take a look at that article.  It definitely feels like the more I know about how things are, the more I worry about it.  Its frustrating because the rational part of my brain at once recognizes that few of Trump's policies actively hurt me (white upper middle class dude), but what does hurt is seeing the evil he and his followers do and being able to do nothing to stop it. And then watching people who I thought I knew actively cheer him on, and having no ability to even talk to them about it.

We're supposed to be the good guys damn it.  I want to be the good guys.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, argonak said:

We're supposed to be the good guys damn it.  I want to be the good guys.

No one's the good guys. Especially us white people. We can just keep trying to be less bad. 

[Zorral]

No.  They want almost everyone I care about to be dead, deported, tortured, denied every human right -- and since I believe otherwise they are very happy and willing to have me die too.  One cannot talk reasonably with them -- except to never say anything They don't disagree with.  Eff that.  And Eff them.  I ain't wasting my precious bit of oxygen on Them.

 

[Week]

3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Uh, plenty of words in the podcast. They make some good points about all this "you're being too pure" nonsense that you like so much.

This is pretty bad form on a discussion message board. I didn't ask for a podcast recommendation -- you posted it without any context, one-line summary, or any analysis. Considering you were unwilling to do so and then posted thrice afterwards I then generally view that as intentionally disrespectful. I'd fucking prefer an ad hominem response. At least that would be entertaining. Suffice to say, I drove to the grocery store and listened to 40 minutes of podcasts that I know are quality and that I'll benefit from listening to.

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

it's a mess--they are cultists, but they can be broken of the cultic mind control.  it may be amusing to insult rightwingers, but it is much more satisfying to lead them out of error and potentially welcome them into civilized society.

 

I try to keep my counter points as simple as possible when talking to southern indoctrinees down here. Is it 100% accurate? No, there are exceptions. The realignment took a while. But I think I get the point across.

Simple version:

Me: Have you ever considered that the area of the country that thought owning other humans was a good idea might be wrong in their current beliefs?

Other: It was the Democrats who owned the slaves! The Republicans freed them!

Me: Yes, and the South was so pissed at Republicans for this they voted Democrat for 100 straight years. Until 1964 when a Democrat passed the Civil Rights Act. And the South was so pissed at Democrats for this they've voted Republican for 60 straight years since then. (except for the time the South voted for Wallace. We all know who that asshole is.)

 

[A True Kaniggit]

Ugh. How hard is it for people to understand, "My parents taught me this growing up!” doesn't make something true?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Ugh. How hard is it for people to understand, "My parents taught me this growing up!” doesn't make something true?

It is literally one of the hardest concepts for human beings to understand ever.

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, S John said:

Entirely boring! We were the only people there at about 1:30. Took less than 5 minutes. I didn’t feel like bothering the poll people to ask them what the turnout was like earlier. Either way, it is done. 

Boy were guys lucky! CNN has been showing absolutely massive line-ups in Virginia, longer than a football field. Election officials say they’ve never seen a first day like this!

[A True Kaniggit]

17 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

It is literally one of the hardest concepts for human beings to understand ever.

Yeah. I know. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t frustrate me. 

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Ugh. How hard is it for people to understand, "My parents taught me this growing up!” doesn't make something true?

I think we all have areas of this that we have never even considered may not be true.

Fury Sr is a cement mason who grew up on a farm. There is no higher value to him than working hard. It wasn’t until very recently in my adult life that I even wondered if this very dearly held belief in working hard that has been instilled in me is bullshit. I never questioned it. I have spent my whole life in sneering disgust at laziness that does not impact me or anyone else in any way at all. Intellectually, now that I’ve bothered to think about it, exalting hard work as a virtue is just capitalist propaganda. I color on people for a living. I spend 50-60hrs a week on this. Financially, I do not need to work this much or this hard. But I do it and I know I will continue to do it until my body deteriorates enough to stop me. All because the person I most look up to does the same and raised me this way- and I’m gonna keep doing it fully aware that it’s based in principles I completely disagree with.

 

We are all that person about something, whether we know it or not. We all hold unquestioned beliefs.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

And so here it is, the no true Scotsman rearing its ugly head. You use purity to dismiss purity. 

Also, middle ground. 

And, who is accusing anyone of not being a real liberal?

The point of the podcast was to illuminate how you (in this case) are defining purity to stop valid criticism. That definition will change, no doubt, when you need it to.

You, like Jace said. I think you've talked so much shit here that you've forgotten a lot of it. I mean just the other day you said I have no empathy because I pointed out your strategy is misguided. How do you even make that jump?

And no I am not stopping valid criticism. I welcome it. Try doing the same.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

RGB just passed away. Fuck.