Can we at least end one narrative?
-
@Jolly said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Jolly said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Mik said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Yet still people try to claim some sort of equivalence between the two side on this. There is no equivalence. They may share some characteristics, but not this horrid example.
But, to quote Trump, the cure cannot be worse than the disease.
"Wokeism" is quite bad.
"Trumpism" is quite bad, albeit for entirely different reasons.
Describe "Trumpism", please.
I wouldn't mind writing a few paragraphs about this, but I assume we wouldn't really come to a common understanding because you wouldn't agree with my analysis of the situation.
That's never stopped you before.
Cheers!
-
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
"Wokeism" is quite bad.
"Trumpism" is quite bad, albeit for entirely different reasons.Want to eliminate both? The left has to stop demonizing the right. That's all that has to happen.
-
The Left also needs to talk to and compromise with the Right.
How many guest lecturers have been forbidden via protests and censorship to speak on college campuses? How many times have we heard that the Left will not speak to any on the Right, they literally will not talk. Bret and Eric Weinstein, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, all examples of liberals and self-described progressives who have found that the only ones that will allow discourse are people on the Right, so they now have the scarlet letter of being "rightists" if only enough that they have been demonetized and censored by Big Tech.
Voices are not heard, they are stifled. Until that changes, it is a new form of civil war. Not sure if it's just the beginning, or if it's growing towards full-swing.
Keep in mind I'm in Portland. That, somehow, explains a lot of my perspective as the riots are still going on every night, even if you don't hear about them.
-
@Rainman said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
The Left also needs to talk to and compromise with the Right.
How many guest lecturers have been forbidden via protests and censorship to speak on college campuses? How many times have we heard that the Left will not speak to any on the Right, they literally will not talk. Bret and Eric Weinstein, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, all examples of liberals and self-described progressives who have found that the only ones that will allow discourse are people on the Right, so they now have the scarlet letter of being "rightists" if only enough that they have been demonetized and censored by Big Tech.
Voices are not heard, they are stifled. Until that changes, it is a new form of civil war. Not sure if it's just the beginning, or if it's growing towards full-swing.
Keep in mind I'm in Portland. That, somehow, explains a lot of my perspective as the riots are still going on every night, even if you don't hear about them.
Joe didn't stop those?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
"Wokeism" is quite bad.
"Trumpism" is quite bad, albeit for entirely different reasons.Want to eliminate both? The left has to stop demonizing the right. That's all that has to happen.
Maybe, but I think there's also a lot the conservatives could do, such as picking a real leader for 2024.
-
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
"Wokeism" is quite bad.
"Trumpism" is quite bad, albeit for entirely different reasons.Want to eliminate both? The left has to stop demonizing the right. That's all that has to happen.
Maybe, but I think there's also a lot the conservatives could do, such as picking a real leader for 2024.
That doesn't matter.
What happens if Trump becomes the Resistance and is elected again in 2024? That excuses demonization and the cancel culture?
-
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Mik said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Yet still people try to claim some sort of equivalence between the two side on this. There is no equivalence. They may share some characteristics, but not this horrid example.
But, to quote Trump, the cure cannot be worse than the disease.
"Wokeism" is quite bad.
"Trumpism" is quite bad, albeit for entirely different reasons.
A perfect example of talking around the issue. No one has ever been driven out of a teaching position for not supporting “Trumpism” , whatever that means. Many have been for various violations of wholeness.
-
Obviously you guys see this differently, but in my book moving the US democracy to the verge of an authoritarian autocracy while destroying the world order and, last but not least, attacking truth and reason itself on a daily basis is in my humble opinion not necessarily better than firing teachers or professors and suppressing freedom of speech in general. Both are really bad.
-
@Klaus Agree somewhat. I'd say "verge of authoritarian autocracy" somewhat overstates the case, although had he been re-elected that might have become much more of a threat. And pulling us out of the various world organizations and agreements was insane.
Prepare yourself for the xenophobic uproar.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Catseye3 said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Klaus Agree somewhat. I'd say "verge of authoritarian autocracy" somewhat overstates the case, although had he been re-elected that might have become much more of a threat.
Prepare yourself for the xenophobic uproar.
Name one court decision that Trump has lost, and then ignored all court orders.
-
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Klaus said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
"Wokeism" is quite bad.
"Trumpism" is quite bad, albeit for entirely different reasons.Want to eliminate both? The left has to stop demonizing the right. That's all that has to happen.
Maybe, but I think there's also a lot the conservatives could do, such as picking a real leader for 2024.
That would help alleviate the problems on their end, that's true. But because those problems contribute very little to today's societal troubles, and because the latter is almost exclusively the fault of SJWs, I don't care, and I don't see how you can make a case for prioritizing today's conservative shortcomings. It's delusional.
Fix the liberal hate-mongering, and jackass megalomaniacs who pretend to care about conservatives have far less of a chance wielding political power. "This is how you get more Trump" is exactly the concern.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
"This is how you get more Trump" is exactly the concern.
There....Right freaking there.
And @Klaus ? The feature that allowed me to highlight and copy that line from Aqua's post and hit reply and have it pop in the response automatically is brilliant.
-
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?
I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.
I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.
You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?
-
@Mik said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Yet still people try to claim some sort of equivalence between the two side on this. There is no equivalence. They may share some characteristics, but not this horrid example.
Well, as Klaus said, there doesn’t seem to be anyone here who is denying the elephant at all. And there’s no equivalence between the two sides when it comes to problematic behaviour at this point in time.
What I’m very much missing in this whole discussion, is an effort to understand why it has come this far. I get the anger towards SJW’s, the cancel culture, etc. But how did those ideas manage to get so much traction? Why do they feel justified to have these ideas?
I understand how these questions may make you feel targeted. As if someone is trying to turn it all around and say that it’s all the republicans’ fault. That’s not at all my intention, and I’m sorry if this is how anything I said came across.
At bottom, I think it has a lot to do with how your society and, most of all, your political system is organised. Since in both parties there are significant groups that hold extreme views (since they have nowhere else to go), and presidential candidates can’t get elected if they outright reject their views and lose those people’s votes as a result, those extreme views remain within the mainstream parties. That doesn’t seem like a healthy situation. And you get things like democrats who don’t want to make any concessions at all on abortion, out of fear it will be completely banned by the other side if they would; and republicans who don’t want to make any concessions at all on measures to decrease gun violence, out of fear that someone is going to take away all of their guns and their second amendment rights. And when that goes on for long enough, all reason disappears from the debate up to the point where a lot of people no longer even seem to recognise their own motivations for holding a particular viewpoint. It all becomes us versus them.
Rainman said that the left also should talk to and compromise with the right. I think that’s absolutely true, and the same goes for the right.
-
Why has it gotten to this point?
IMO, two reasons...
- Media. Especially news media. The people who make the decisions and the on-air personalities are mostly Dems. Probably 90%+. And many of those people, are to the Left of the majority of the Dem party. As such, their stories have built-in bias, as they try to pull the country ever more Leftward.
The constant barrage did not start with Trump. I remember it under Reagan. It has just reached a crescendo during Trump. I think the perfect example was the Hunter Biden story. Replace "Hunter Buden" with "Donald Trump, Jr." and just imagine the feeding frenzy.
- Education. Most high school teachers are Dems, and are guilty of letting bias creep into their classroom, but they are not the major problem. The major problem occurs in university. At one time, American universities were places where many ideas were debated. There was variety if viewpoints among faculty, but even then, professionalism kept a lot if that out of the classroom, especially in the math and science classes. Now, most universities are delivering a lot of Leftist dogma in the classroom, with a heavy dose of social justice. Professors or students who try to fight the wave, are censured, shunned, not promoted, singled out for ridicule, etc.
So the schools are increasingly turning out more students with radical ideologies. As one wag put it, a lot of antifa's members are thirty year-old, college educated white people, with useless degrees, a mountain of student debt and no hope of getting enough money together to marry, buy a home or even move out if their parent's basement.
-
@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?
I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.
I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.
You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?
I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.
No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.
Justify that.
-
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?
I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.
I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.
You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?
I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.
No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.
Justify that.
Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.
Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.
I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.
-
@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?
I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.
I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.
You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?
I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.
No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.
Justify that.
Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.
Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.
I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.
But it's damn accurate.
-
@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Nunatax said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
@Larry said in Can we at least end one narrative?:
Ah, so you think a description of the procedure is just for "shock value", and you'd prefer that it be described in more fluffy bunny terms... I see.. do you think that makes the pain that baby feels any less painful?
I'm sorry, but I will not describe the murder of an innocent baby in fluffy bunny terms just to make those who support the murder of that baby feel better about themselves. Nor do I feel any need to "understand the viewpoint" of those who support such murder for political reasons. It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue. It only becomes a political issue when those same people who support and defend the murder of innocent babies try to claim to be morally superior because of their political ideology. I think contrary to your attempt to accommodate their feelings, they should be forced to watch a few of these murders, and when referring to these murders that they support it should be done using the most accurate, graphic description possible.
I don’t prefer anything in particular. But the single sentence response you chose to use when you just entered the discussion here, made your intentions quite clear.
You know, it takes an equal level of effort for me to understand the motivations of the other extreme, namely that abortion should be prohibited no matter what, even if it’s for medical reasons. That is not at all a viewpoint that prevents babies from being in pain. Is that a viewpoint that you combat just as fiercely?
I meant for my intentions to be clear. We weren't talking about early abortions, we weren't talking about medically necessary abortions. We were talking about late term abortions. I made that equally clear. You are the one who expanded it to include every possible instance of abortion, not me. And this is exactly what happens every single time someone tries to justify abortion. Then you admit you were aware that I was talking about late term abortion when you referred to it as an "extreme" with no abortion at any cost being the other extreme.
No, you didn't like hearing late term abortion described. It made you uncomfortable. And you want me to describe it in fluffy bunny terms so that no one has to deal with the fact that it is pure, out and out murder. You want to talk about it in fluffy bunny terms so that it can be discussed like it was just another political issue with two sides. Not gonna happen. Late term abortion is where a female carries a usually perfectly healthy baby to full term, a baby that for months has been sucking its thumb, listening to its mother's voice, sleeping, being awake, laughing, crying... and on its way out of the birth canal being grabbed hold of, its throat slit to bleed it out, its head pulled off, its arms and legs pulled off, and then thrown into the trash like a tumor. Many say its.vital organs are harvested and sold.
Justify that.
Please pay attention. I'm not justifying it, I said I was against it with the exception of when it's for medical reasons, remember? If you feel the need to describe here the most drastic late-term abortion procedure in its most graphic detail, have at it! As you just did... Do I "like" hearing it described? No, I obviously don't like hearing it described. I hate it, I hate the procedure itself and the fact that it is sometimes necessary to use it. But no, I have no preference whatsoever on how you decide to describe anything. If that's how you feel you should address this, then go ahead. In my opinion, it's the surefire thing to make it worse though.
Yes, it should be a moral issue, but it's my point exactly that this has become way too political and way too polarized in your country. Us vs them, action-reaction, extremes get worse and legislation has become a caricature of what it could have had the extreme voices present on both sides not been so loud.
I already said it's very different where I live. We've come to a compromise that in my mind is very reasonable and one I feel confident to defend. We certainly differ from you guys culturally. But inherently and on average, I simply don't believe we are very different (if at all) in terms of our capacity to recognize what is morally acceptable and what not. Therefore, I'm convinced that if reason would return to this debate (and other debates, after all, this was an example), that the majority of those who some like to call "baby-killers" for voting for Biden, will agree to a reasonable compromise. I do not believe at all that the majority of them actually believes that allowing late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is really all that reasonable. I'm also convinced that the majority of them would never let it come to a late-term abortion, were they to seek an abortion. That is why I think calling them "baby-killers" is neither right, nor helpful.
I'm not the one who needs to pay attention, you are. I spoke specifically about late term abortion. You chose to take me to task over it by talking about early abortions, and everything in between. You want reason to return to the abortion debate, stick to the topic instead of trying to bury it in bull shit. You navel gaze your way into scenarios that simply do not exist. So frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it is exactly your way of discussing this issue that keeps it from being addressed.
