Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 756

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

Gotta love whataboutism.

“Whataboutism” is a logical fallacy when the purpose of the argument is to deflect from the original topic of debate and potentially shift the blame to the other side. I’m saying both sides are full of it.

That’s the beauty of dropping party affiliation; you no longer feel the need to defend “your side” and all bullshit is laid bare.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

Both sides are definitely full of it. I think one side is significantly fuller of it but I might just be full of it myself.

Analyzing my own behavior and thought patterns forced me to arrive at the following conclusion regarding my own biases: the issues I care about most tend to be issues championed by Democrats (with a few significant exceptions), so it was easy for me to fall into the trap of seeing Republicans as “worse” and buy into negative depictions of conservatives. If I were as passionate about the issues conservatives tend to be passionate about, I’d quite likely view progressives as “worse”.

Our bias and self-confidence convince us that what we believe is obviously the most reasonable belief, and anyone who disagrees must be missing something, when what’s usually missing is just a bit of perspective, and perspective is difficult to maintain when feelings are involved. And because politics involve people at every level, feelings are always involved.

True objectivity is hard.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/richard-spencer-the-alt-right-is-not-pro-free-speech/

Reminder that the alt-reich are some of Trump’s most ardent defenders. (He never denounced them.)

Trump didn’t renounce Spencer and Obama didn’t renounce Farrakhan. Both are wrong.

Total false-equivalence. Obama never associated with a black supremacist outlet like Trump has with the alt-right (Brietbart and InfoWars). Trump even implicitly defended the worst of the alt-right by refusing to condemn the Nazi rally in South Carolina where a counterprotester was murdered and another twenty were injured by an alt-right terrorist. This absolutely is whataboutism. Who cares that Obama didn’t denounce someone significantly less dangerous a decade ago? It’s irrelevant to the conversation about Trump’s courting of the alt-right. And by the way, Obama never once tried to court the “anti-white” vote the way Trump courted the racist vote.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

And the Republican party is worse. I hate the Democrats too, but to several groups of people the Republicans absolutely are worse. The Republican party considers gays an aberration and is opposed to their civil liberties on the whole. There’s nothing unreasonable about calling them “worse”.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

A boogeyman with the President’s ear and an audience of millions.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-the-boy-scouts-of-america-is-a-pedophile-induction-center/

Note: Alex Jones was an ardent defender of alt-reich mouthpiece Milo Y when the latter condoned the statutory rape of minors by adults and also admitted to knowing of active childraping priests and other abusers that he refused to name. Jones also defended Republican pedophile and child-molester Roy Moore. Ironically, Alex Jones is the real supporter of pedophilia, not the BSA.

Again with the boogeymen!

All those people are nutbars. I know they find some quarter among people who call themselves conservatives but no party is free from having stupid, dangerous, and crazy people supposedly on their side.

A boogeyman with the President’s ear and an audience of millions.

Does he really have the President’s ear? Though I think it’s overblown, I’m not saying there isn’t some legitimate concern. During Obama’s time we heard about the bad people who had his ear and who were responsible for his rise. That was legitimate too. But the line of argument isn’t terribly strong. Some of it is really weak guilt by association type stuff. Trump and many other Republicans opposed Moore. So much for Alex Jones having Trump’s ear. Milo (and his former patron Bannon) have been largely banished.

It’s eye-rolling stuff to the great many conservatives/Republicans who don’t follow, like, or care about those people.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

And give me some examples of the people that Obama “associated with” that were even remotely as dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore? I’d be shocked if you could name one that’s even in the same league as those guys. Jones very recently had a meltdown where he turned on Trump, but in it he mentioned that he’d spoken to the president as recently as six months ago.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

And give me some examples of the people that Obama “associated with” that were even remotely as dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore? I’d be shocked if you could name one that’s even in the same league as those guys. J

This.

Maybe both parties used to be equally bad and I just agreed with the ideas on one side, but the Republican party has gone completely off the deep end and if you don’t see it I don’t know what to tell you.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Saying that the Ds and Rs are equally bad at this point is a defense of the Republicans. It’s no different than saying that Trump and Hillary are equally bad or saying that the alt-reich is no different than extreme SJWs on college campuses.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

And give me some examples of the people that Obama “associated with” that were even remotely as dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore? I’d be shocked if you could name one that’s even in the same league as those guys. J

This.

Maybe both parties used to be equally bad and I just agreed with the ideas on one side, but the Republican party has gone completely off the deep end and if you don’t see it I don’t know what to tell you.

Apparently there is a wiki for that.

I’ve been hearing that the GOP went off the deep end for as long as I can remember. Maybe after the Democrats crying wolf all these years you’re right. Then again, Trump will be gone in 2-6 years.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.

I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.

Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).

They don’t oppose tax cuts. The tax cuts that benefit only the rich are a bipartisan affair and don’t do shit for the working class. Regarding the working class, Democrats are more in favor of some weak drug legalization as well as vague healthcare for all, which benefit the working class far more than what the Republicans are for. I take issue with your generalization because it’s inaccurate. If you wanted to generalize the Democrats as center-right corporate sell-outs with some mildly enlightened social values that they don’t actually care enough about to fight for, then I’d be right there with you in that generalization. My generalization that the Republican party is opposed to gay marriage and gay rights on the whole is actually an accurate generalization that I doubt even you would argue with. Oh wait, nevermind, you do.

I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.

And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.

It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?

Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.

Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.

I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.

Family values in the Republican sense is the “One man, one woman” bullshit that most of them don’t even live by. The civil liberties that they’re opposed to are the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, gay adoption, protection from zealots refusing to do their jobs (e.g. Kim Davis), and the list goes on and on. I don’t know if those are the things that you consider “gay rights” in quotation marks (is that supposed to imply that they aren’t real rights?).

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

And give me some examples of the people that Obama “associated with” that were even remotely as dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore? I’d be shocked if you could name one that’s even in the same league as those guys. J

This.

Maybe both parties used to be equally bad and I just agreed with the ideas on one side, but the Republican party has gone completely off the deep end and if you don’t see it I don’t know what to tell you.

Apparently there is a wiki for that.

And none of them are anywhere near as influential, despicable, or dangerous as criminals like Alex Jones and Roy Moore or propagandists like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon.

I’ve been hearing that the GOP went off the deep end for as long as I can remember. Maybe after the Democrats crying wolf all these years you’re right. Then again, Trump will be gone in 2-6 years.

They’ve been getting progressively more insane over the past 20-ish years. Now they’re beyond recovery. I think it really took a nosedive with the Tea Party. That’s probably when the crazies really dominated the party. It’s not possible for a person with a sane platform to become their candidate. John Kasich, who I’m sure I’d find plenty of things to disagree with on if I looked into him, actually seemed pretty reasonable in those Republican debates, but he couldn’t compete with morons like Trump or crazies like Cruz. Mitt Romney probably could’ve been an okay candidate and maybe even an okay president, but he got pulled so far to the right in the 2012 primary just to become the nominee because reasonable candidates aren’t welcome in the GOP these days. Before you try to draw a false equivalence to the Dems, I’ll remind you that Hillary was one of the most moderate candidates we’ve had this century except for Al Gore.

The Person in Question