Lurker > joe40001

hockeybub89 posted...

He might actually do that, since all he treasures is the debate, the diversity of thought. I don't even know why he brings up Daryl Davis when he would hate the idea of everyone thinking the correct way.

Certain kinds of discussions I do find interesting, they might be intellectually indulgent, but to be clear I don't like emotional agitation.

And yeah, I legitimately really like and respect Daryl Davis and his outlook/approach.

Not sure what you mean by "the correct way". Even in good faith discussion there will always be room for further refinement. Are Newtonian mechanics "the correct way"? No, but they are damn good. Still, there's likely always further nuance that can be injected. And IMO that's the point of good faith discussion, to all move together in more accurate directions.

Do you not find those kinds of discussions interesting?

I tried to respond to "Wandering__Hero" but gamefaqs said:
"There is no original content in this message available to quote."

And I gotta agree with gamefaqs on this one.

CyricZ posted...

They absolutely are. Convincing someone of an idea you want to impress upon them is one-to-one with trying to sell them a product.

You and I fundamentally see things differently.

It's not "my idea" that I'm aiming to "impress upon them". It's "an idea" that I am sharing with them, they can challenge it, consider it, accept, reject, or augment it. What they do and how they respond isn't part of my agenda because both our agendas should be just getting as close to the truth as possible. So there's no salesmen and no customers. Nobody owns ideas, ideas are articulations of perceptions of objective reality and we exchange them so that we can all come closer to a better shared understanding of objective reality.

NoMeLx22x posted...

This is what you posted in the OP.

Yes it is

Why would anyone want to check it out? That's why you should sell the video. No one sees a 44 minute video and is ever gonna watch with no context.

I disagree. I mean I click on videos on my yt feed all the time and all I have are titles and thumbnails, if it's mildly compelling I might skim it or start it or whatever. And also, like I said, if nobody checked it out, that would be fine.

However, if someone posted a 44 minute video and said what was in it and what to expect and what topics were discussed and what they liked and didn't like about the video, or what others might find intereeting about it, then maybe ill give it a try.

Maybe that would have helped, idk, I've had some bad experiences where I try to do that and people latch onto what I say, and try to make the topic about what I said. And what I have to say isn't the interesting thing, the video is the interesting thing (for those who might find it interesting.)

You wouldn't do this with people in real life. You wouldn't just walk up to group of friends/people and talk about this interesting video that you watched last night, and when they asked you what it was about or what was interesting go "oh you should just watch it and see" they'd think you were an asshole. So why do it here?

I'm not walking up to anybody here though, I made a topic whose title is "I thought this was an interesting political discussion." and then people chose to come into that topic. I don't see how I'm invading other's spaces when people are coming to the topic.

And idk, I feel like me and coworkers and friends might have similar non-sequiturs about random videos we encountered that we found interesting. I don't recall anybody IRL assuming I was requiring they watch a video just because I mentioned it, or requiring me to sell them on it when I wasn't even expecting them to check it out.

I'll concede the internet makes the social dynamics wonky, but I don't see what I did that was wrong. I saw what I thought was an interesting political discussion. I shared that video and said that I'd be interested IF anybody checked it out and had thoughts.

What's wrong with that?

hockeybub89 posted...

GOP: "LGBTQ people are evil! They're demons! They want to groom our children and rape them! We need to eliminate the LGBTQ agenda. It has no place in America. It is a thread to freedom and safety!"

Joe Numbers: "I don't know about you guys, but I will give that a charitable interpretation since I believe in diverse viewpoints that go against the common one. Diverse thought and discussion is good for the mind. They clearly are just slightly upset about some of the more radical and stubborn activists. They don't want to harm anyone and you all will probably find they make some good points if you give them a fair chance. Remember that Daryl Davis has converted KKK members. There is common ground, a compromise we can meet at. Stubbornness makes you just as bad as them, worse even if you think your beleifs make you a better person."

That is not an accurate representation of my perspective. I'm sorry you experienced it that way.

You are an interesting person, because unlike a lot of people here who I feel are rude for rude sake, I do feel you often engage in good faith discussions with me, which is genuinely commendable considering how harshly (if largely inaccurately) you view some of my perspectives.

Having a back and forth conversation with people like you IMO is the part of CE that I do find valuable and rewarding. I have often wondered if it's better for me and my mental health to avoid a place like CE all together, but I do genuinely believe in the value of exposing myself to ideas outside of what I'm used to, and challenging myself with different perspectives.

Idk if CE is the medium to do that, but also idk if I'm ready to just give up on this place too.

Idk. Anyway, just thought I'd give that feedback/appreciation to you.

Antifar posted...

Above all else, I just don't understand where one finds the time to make YouTube a major means of their information consumption

For things like this I was listening while I played video games.

Idk, what do you like to listen to for information consumption?

GranolaPanic posted...

You said in the first post that you wanted our thoughts on the video and to discuss it without giving a single detail on what it was about.

I said:
"I'd be curious about the thoughts of anybody else who checks it out."

That doesn't require that anybody checks it out, that just says if somebody did check it out I'd be curious about their thoughts.

So yeah, I never did the "then expects everyone to watch and discuss it." part

toreysback posted...

because there are about 1000 yt videos i haven't got a chance to watch yet that seem interesting to me. Based solely on the thumbnail, this does not displace any of the 1000. it can get in line.

and i am supposed to do this just for the pleasure of arguing with you about it? you are so hungry for an argument of any sort, that you are happily arguing with people about whether you are the kind of person who should be argued with at all

Who says you are supposed to watch it? I didn't.

I just shared it. I didn't demand anybody watch it. I only would need to sell if I was personally invested in as many people watching as possible. But I am not. I was sharing it for anybody who might be interested. If the amount of people who are interested is 0, so be it. I shared it because there exists a non-zero chance a person or multiple people *might* be interested, but that is different than me requiring anybody specifically be interested.

I am not requiring anybody specifically be interested.

It's like me making a topic saying "Hey, burger king is having a great deal on burgers" and then a bunch of people being like "convince me that I should get these burgers" or "yeah, I don't like burger king"

And like, yeah that's fine. Not everything is for everybody. Whatever, it's no big deal.

Prismsblade posted...

I really hate when people post a long ass video, doesn't elaborate on it at all or even provide a short summery, then expects everyone to watch and discuss it.

Fortunately I didn't do the last part, so we're good.

CyricZ posted...

You'll never improve at this until you get some perspective on how other people view you.

I know your type like to refer to "the marketplace of ideas", but even that metaphor implies its existence as a "marketplace", with different "vendors" and you have vendors that are trusted, and vendors that are less trusted.

Ultimately, you'll still have to effectively sell your "product", and if someone with your mod history were to present what is essentially "a black box" and expect people to trust you, that's when you truly failed at understanding your business and your customers.

Firstly, I don't know what "mod history" has to do with trust. It seems like it has to do with understanding and inferring the rules and expectations of an environment and playing by the rules to the best of your ability.

I don't think you know what "my type" is. As I fundamentally don't see any of this the way you are representing.

IMO Ideas aren't sales, ideas are about discussion and people both learning from each other. It's not winning and losing, it's people enriching each other with different perspectives.

I don't see people I disagree with as enemies or customers, they are people who I might have some insight to offer to, and also people who might have insight to offer me. Nobody is a perfect oracle of truth, you learn/grow by challenging yourself, which is why I am interested in diverse perspectives including those that are novel to me, and infer that others in the world might be similarly interested too.

NoMeLx22x posted...

No one on planet earth is watching an unqualified 44 minute video with absolutely no context.

Post what was interesting. What you liked about it. What you thought that other people with similar thoughts than yours would like.

Maybe then at least like 1 person will skim through it but otherwise you're just vomiting out a video that no one is gonna watch based on who you are and your usual garbage opinions.

Like most discussions it can't be summed up in 2 seconds. It talks about mental health, free speech, social media's negative effects particularly among certain age groups/demographics, certain campus politics, and many other things. I don't want to summarize stuff because often people just latch onto a headline or a summary and turn it into a long discussion over a title and not the content itself.

But like, you don't have to watch it. Nobody does. Skip it, skim through it. I just shared it because I found it interesting, and thought somebody else here might. But if nobody does that's fine too.

I don't understand why it feels like I'm supposed to "sell" this video if I want people to watch it. Watch it or don't. Take it or leave it. It's literally just a video I found interesting that I thought others might find interesting too.

Fluttershy posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/5/1/AAbvRMAAEhr3.jpg

You are proving my point for me.

I can't tell if you are doing it intentionally or you are oblivious to it, but you pretty much perfectly demonstrated my point.

So... um... thanks?

I'll start:
Chumbawamba

Hornezz posted...

Do you have a source for that?

For what?

*Capcom looking at woke companies de-sexyfying their female characters*
Capcom:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/4/6/AACZqoAAEhry.jpg

Hornezz posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/9/AACpnzAAEhrr.jpg

The whole sea-lion thing doesn't even make sense.

What's the idea, it's a person who asks you questions and is polite and that proves they are bad?

That doesn't make any sense. It seems like people invoke this "sea-lion" claim when they are challenged or questioned, and then if you ask them what they even mean, or what it would look like to challenge or question them in a way that isn't "sea-lioning" they also call that "sea-lioning". Which, for no apparent reason, I guess means they think they are justified in being dismissive towards it.

IMO, seems like a lot of work to just indirectly say "I don't like being challenged".

And even if that is the case, like, how is me sharing a video something that is invading your space? It has nothing to do with you. Can I invent a dismissive animal name for somebody who comes into a topic and takes it personally when it has nothing to do with them?

Stop "Selfish Otter"ing, Hornezz. It's not about you, Selfish Otter. Sometimes people just share videos and it's not a personal attack on your space or self, it's just people sharing videos you aren't into.

CyricZ posted...

Why do you think anyone would want to watch that video with no setup when it comes from someone with your reputation?

I'm not sure what "my reputation" is supposed to mean. I'll interpret it possibly more charitable than you might have meant and interpret it as "guy who doesn't necessarily share the common perspectives around here around everything."

And idk, I'm interested in diverse perspectives, so it stands to reason that others here might be interested too.

I mean I could try to "sell" the video with setup, but I don't even think it's that amazing, it's not my perspective, but it's also not not my perspective. It was just a political conversation I found interesting.

I guess, in my head, I like imagining some people some times are curious about perspectives they wouldn't otherwise necessarily hear, because I am that way. And so I shared it in case there was such a person.

I'm fine with it getting no responses, but I do get confused by rude responses.

Idk, do you think sharing it is a mistake? If so, why?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

lol I ain't watching no 44 minute video about boring stuff

This kind of response, for example, makes total sense to me. I totally understand lots of people being like "not interested" and moving on. Just because I found a conversation interesting doesn't mean everybody will.

The rude responses do still confuse me though...

BurmesePenguin posted...

You faking ignorance as to why you're getting this reply is just reason number 300 as to why nobody wants to argue with you.

I know some people are rude towards me, or dislike that I'm not in lock-step with them politically, but like the kinds of overtly rude responses still do baffle me.

You act like whatever this rudeness is, the reason for it is crystal clear. So please, without vague allusions, using specific words, what specifically would you say is the issue?

I don't know what specifically, if anything this topic refers to. But IMO I don't think it's a good idea to treat politics like team sports.

It's not your rival team you are dunking on, it's your fellow american with whom you have a lot of common cause.

Being motivated by spite or contempt for your political "rival team" is how we get very bad results IMO. When republicans did it over Hillary it's how we got Trump, for example.

Is it recreational rudeness or is the rudeness meant to convey something?

Like you both could have easily just said nothing, so "I don't care" isn't what's being conveyed.

I really don't understand what the goal is. Unless it's just like boredom and it's fishing for drama, outside of that I don't get the logic behind being rude for no reason.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Shut the fuck up

Why such a rude response?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvUNcr2C41E

I'd be curious about the thoughts of anybody else who checks it out.

It's just clickbait, crazy person acts crazy, who cares?

A major disappointment relative to NV narratively, but it added some good mechanics.

So for a sequel to NV, it was a disappointment, but it was still a fun/good game. Just not as fun/good as it should have been.

Dark_Spiret posted...

realistically the two arnt comparable though unless you throw meaningless padding to keep people out which is what most of the world does. a gun does not require the same level of thought and competency to safely use. there is a very real reason why there are more regulations for vehicles. you need to know a hundred different things to safely operate in public and can cause (and does) magnitudes more damage to the public if improperly used. even depsite all the extra regulations and safety features added cars still cause billions in damages and in the US millions of injurys each year. despite the 40-50% ownership rate of the US, guns are not even close.

not to say safety shouldnt be a requirement, but its all common sense as far as how to safely operate a gun (even the 4 main rules can be boiled down to only two). finger off the trigger unless you are planning to fire it and dont point it at anything you arnt intending to shoot. thats literally it. there, you now know hjow to operate a gun. now all thats left is some practice which can be done at home and at a range. anything else specific can be learned from a 3 minute youtube video.

Fine, then it should be trivial for all responsible gun owners to pass such a test. But honestly I have my doubts that the people who engage in mass shootings could pass a basic gun safety/responsibility test.

If "no responsible gun owner" is going to hold the gun with their finger on the trigger or point it at others, it's all the more reason to have a test that would filter out everybody who would.

People act like gun ownership is this virtuous right for strong responsible adults, if so, people shouldn't act like babies and should be able to pass a few tests to demonstrate their responsibility.

When working in an outdoor lumber section of a store I had to be taught and demonstrate responsible and safe usage before using the band saw, I had to take a test and demonstrate responsible and safe usage before using the fork lift. Guns are much more dangerous than bandsaws and forklifts, as such people need to demonstrate responsibility and basic safety comprehension before owning one.

If owning a gun is part of somebody's big "look at me, I'm masculine manly man" routine then they should at least be "manly" enough to pass a test and demonstrate basic responsibility and safety. If they are going to cry about such a requirement being "unfair" then they are a giant baby and have no business owning a gun anyway.

Maze_ posted...

I don't think cruelty is unique to people online

idk, it's been my experience that people are just waaay more kind and decent IRL than on the internet.

Am I unique in thinking this kind of behavior comes out a lot more online?

Big_Nabendu posted...

Because the world is inherently evil
And most people are brainwashed

I personally do not believe the former.

As far as the latter, IMO lots of people do live in ideological bubbles/tribes. So they might have very little empathy for those outside of their bubbles/tribes. That's not exactly what you were saying, but it is related.

EmilyTheCEman posted...

Or does slutty no longer exist and all promiscuity is empowering nowadays?

I think what people would say as their answers would be different than what they would socially/culturally normalize or endorse in their peer group.

Anyway it is a very very unclear concept, as I do believe most "modern" people seem to be pretty universally "sex positive" in theory but what that means in practice is very unclear. For example, I genuinely do not know how the typical "sex positive" person would speak about a straight man's sexuality.

Is it a good thing? Is it a symbol of the patriarchy? I really have no idea what most people or society is claiming about these things.

It does feel like people are making very firm assertive "sex positive" claims. But that simultaneously what these means specifically is very ambiguous. IMO

Don't get me wrong, some challenging scenarios can cause emotional distress, and working through and overcoming those scenarios has its utility and benefit. But acknowledging that is different than endorsing any suggestion that recreationally inflicting emotional distress on others has any benefit. Because yeah, I don't believe it does.

HANGtheDJ_86 posted...

Triggering folks can be great

Why would you think this?

Do you not recognize their basic humanity? What possible good comes to you from their distress?

Medussa posted...

telling trans people that we're being too emotional about the fucking republican campaign of annihilation they've been on is literally the definition of cruel, you absolute fucking monster. there is no universe where you get to walk that last topic back. none. fucking. none.

I'm very sorry you feel that way. That was not what I was claiming or expressing in that topic. As I expressed before and in that topic, IMO you are allowed your thoughts and feelings, they are valid, and I would not try to take them away from you or anybody.

I would prefer you not call me a "fucking monster" though. I feel that is quite unwarranted.

Medussa posted...

...he says, without even a hint of self-reflection.

I am never cruel. I explicitly denounce any interpretation of anything I've said that is perceived as cruel, and go out of my way to acknowledge that even towards those with whom I strongly disagree: I respect their opinions, their feelings, and their basic humanity.

Being cruel makes no sense to me.

MrFingers07 posted...

They don't do it to look impressive to others, but to see people suffer and because it's humorous to them. Seeing others suffer gives them that same kind of feeling that a normal person would have after hearing a funny joke

Interesting.

Is there some internal narrative they use to explain it, you think? Because despite all the people online who I see like this, I doubt they all would enjoy watching close friends suffer. So is it just the abstraction of the internet? Or maybe many of these people would also secretly enjoy watching their friends suffer?

So is it like "oh that's funny because that person online is suffering, and I don't think they are a real person"?
Or just a general "oh it's funny when anybody who isn't me is suffering"?

And if it's the latter, what's the possible logic? That it's a zero-sum world?

I think we should take our guns at least as seriously as we take our cars, which means licensing requirements and tests to demonstrate competency and responsibility.

We also need to give way less media attention to shooters and stop acting like shooters are in any way "interesting", they are pathetic people and we as a society need to treat them as such.

There are far too many people online who seem to genuinely savor making others angry or emotionally distressed, and I really fundamentally do not understand this. Do they think it makes them look impressive? Because anybody who takes pride in recreational cruelty seems to be spotlighting their own massive character flaws. And this seems counterproductive towards what I'd assume their aim is.

Even as a child I never found the kid who would knock over other kid's legos to be "cool" or impressive in any way.

So why do people act this way? Do they not appreciate how it makes them look? Is it a sunk cost thing where they choose to believe that being rude is cool because otherwise they'd have to face the truth that they've just often been a dick for no reason?

I can't tell if it's a language barrier thing in his review, or if he kinda "didn't get it".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU0OaucfRbM

If you haven't seen RRR, I recommend it. It's quite fun.

Yep.

I do wish there was a place where I could talk about ideas with some of the people here though. I like being challenged on my perspectives and even discussions with people who can be kind of harsh towards me around here seem fruitful and productive overall.

But it doesn't seem viable in the long term seeing as while I can control exactly what I say and what I mean, I cannot control how people choose to interpret what I say, even if I am very precise in my language. I've had people here insist that while I am saying one thing, I definitely mean the opposite, and no form of evidence would persuade them otherwise.

Makes discussions tricky, particularly when I don't want to upset anybody, or have step afoul of a moderator's interpretations. So idk where I'm going to look to have such kinds of conversations in the future. I do think there are many good faith people here, some of whom maybe even assume I dislike them because we disagree on issues, but for the most part I don't dislike anybody speaking in good faith, and I really do believe people are enriched when the have discussions outside their bubble.

I want to have those same kinds of discussions, but I am not sure where they will be in the future, as CE becomes increasingly untenable for such discussions.

I mean, I expect them to effectively never overturn a moderation due to disputes (based on personal experience and reported experience from basically everybody here), but I thought they'd at least articulate what I did wrong or respond to some element of my dispute so I at least got some insight. For all it's faults before, one benefit of the previous system is that people who were moderated and disputed would get explained what exactly the issue was.

Since they do not do that anymore, I will do my best to infer what the supposed violation was, and in my inference I am concluding that (at least in some contexts) it is considered "offensive" and thus against the ToS to argue that "republican politicians are not actively pursuing mass murder".

So fyi to others here, be careful suggesting republican politicians might not be actively pursuing mass murder. Depending on the context, such an claim would be "offensive" and thus against the ToS and thus liable to get you warned.

I will not discuss this further as I am now educated on the matter and do not want to cause any disruption. I wanted to inform my fellow posters so that they are aware and can also operate within the bounds of ToS in the future.

Medussa posted...

simple question, joe:

what's your solution for when you calmly, emotionlessly, educate the republican party members, they calmly, emotionlessly listen to everything you have say, and then they ignore it all and pass all the bills they were planning to pass all along?

because that's reality right now. you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?

How a republican politician votes is downstream of a lot of things, such as political incentives, particularly their desire to not get primaried from within their own party. If you wanted to reduce political extremism you'd likely have to change to open primaries so that political officials wouldn't have to pander to the base.

When I talk about discourse I was more referring to discourse and consensus shifting among the general public, and not directly changing politicians themselves. What that would look like is that you are able to get far right voters to understand that it isn't literally groomers, and that when right wing talking heads use the word "groomer" they are being willfully ambiguous and inflammatory. You likely won't convince a person on the far right that transitioning is good for anybody, that it doesn't "physically/mentally damage people" or whatever they think. But you would shift them away from out-and-out "they are all coming for my children!!!!" transphobia.

And then you can make even more progress with people closer to you ideologically. These are the people whose votes will make a difference towards the outcomes you want, because if you are calm enough to talk with them without expressing contempt for them, they might grow more sympathetic to the cause and thus towards voting for politicians that were sympathetic to the cause.

And to your question of "you really think no one has tried to talk this through? that you're going to come in and save us by having the conversation we never even considered having? really?"

I wouldn't say "no one" has tried it. But I would say that the large majority of what I see are people having contempt for those they even mildly politically disagree with, rather than having this kind of civil discourse I support.

Is it a cure all? No. But it helps more than ambiguous inflammatory rhetoric and angry yelling.
Has no one tried it? No. Some have, but most of what I see is the ambiguous inflammatory rhetoric and angry yelling.

Medussa posted...

Well, there goes the mask. Guess I won't be getting an answer to #182. I figured he had me on his ignore list and wasn't even seeing my posts. But that reply proves he can at least see the quotes, and is just actively ignoring me.

Relax, I didn't see it. I try to start with the last post I saw and respond in order, but sometimes if I've clicked the new messages notification earlier, it will jump me past a post that I haven't yet responded to.

I apologize if you felt skipped. It was not my intent. I will respond to your post now.

CyricZ posted...

So, as someone who claims to be against ambiguity, you have decided, in the absence of a clear message from the Republicans, to just... assume that they're not acting in a manner indicative of genocide.

Your answer to the ambiguity from the Republicans is to remove that ambiguity on their behalf, rather than challenge them to do so themselves.

What do you think compels you to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt on this? Is it a desire to simply hope things will turn for the best? Is it a general presumption that people just would rather have a simple societal sense of order rather than entertaining the idea that there are people who do seek dominance and oppression?

I'm not assuming that. If there were any republicans here I would definitely press them to be more specific about what they think. I do that when I interact with them. I also talk them down from attributing BS motives and agendas about the left.

If they were throwing around the word groomer, I would be like "hold up, what exactly do you mean by that?". Inflammatory ambiguity like that really does bother me.

This is very much a principled stance that I'm consistent on, but there's basically nobody on gamefaqs here on the right for me to do it towards. Is there a single person in this topic taking even the mild right position? I'm probably coming across as the most "right-wing" person in this topic and literally all I'm claiming is that I don't think it's probable that most republicans want to commit mass murder.

And insofar as I am claiming that I don't think their agenda is mass murder, that claim comes from a belief/principle of mine that "it is not prudent or productive to assume the worst of those you don't agree with."

Because honestly how can somebody expect to have a good understanding of the thoughts and beliefs of somebody they hate? By virtue of hating them, you almost certainly are unable to relate to their perspective, or see the world through their eyes. And if that's the case, how can you be sure you know what they are really thinking or believing?

And that applies to society as a whole IMO. It's no good when the right does it to the left, and it's no good when the left does it to the right.

And that principle is related to another principle I have which is "if a conclusion is incredibly convenient relative to my beliefs, it probably isn't comprehensively true."

It would be delusional narcissism for me to think my beliefs as they currently are, are 100% on the money. Even from a probability standpoint, such a thing is effectively impossible. And so if I only ever entertain ideas that don't challenge me at all, I likely don't hold true beliefs, because they have never been challenged in such a way as to expose their flaws. To be well informed you have to allow for the possibility you are wrong in some way.

And when I go into these bubbles that's most of all I see, people who conveniently are sure that people who they disagree with are literally evil monsters who literally want for the world, the worst things imaginable. There was some fairly recent poll, I need to look it up, but it was something like half of democrats think republicans are morally reprehensible, and half of republicans think democrats are morally reprehensible.

And as an outsider, I think that is awfully convenient. To believe "The world is good guys and bad guys, and I am on the good team, and everybody who disagrees with me is evil. And they are so evil I don't even really need to consider their humanity, let alone consider there might be an infinitesimally small chance any of their perspectives have merit at all."

I couldn't take my judgement seriously if I indulged that premise. That's why I come to places like GameFAQs. Not because I like being called insulting names, or feeling people's hate at me. It's honestly rather unpleasant. I honestly could feel much better, smarter, and happier if I just found a good bubble of independents and yucked up insults about the stupidity and moral failings of the "political tribal normies". But that wouldn't help me learn and grow. If I don't challenge my ideas, I will never find the flaws in them, and honestly it's hubris to assume my (or anybody's) beliefs as they exist right now are perfect.

Anyway, all of that is a bit of a tangent, but all of it is to say that generally:
IMO ambiguity is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.
IMO inflammatory rhetoric is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.
IMO assuming the worst of those who you disagree with is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.
IMO assuming you have nothing to learn from those you politically disagree with is unproductive for discourse/society, and I believe in challenging it.

These are principles that I believe across the board, and apply them universally. The only reason you don't see me doing that to republicans here or in defense of democrats here is because there are no republicans here and there are no democrats being attacked here.

emblem-man posted...

I actually agree with this. If in order to "persuade" these independent voters so that they vote for my candidates and policies, I have to butter them up and stoke the right emotional cords in them, then I will do it. Even if it means I have to swallow every ounce of ego and dignity that I have.

But do not misunderstand me here...I think it's fucking insulting not just to the intelligence of the independent voters, but also to the minority group that depends on these policies passing. I speak more about this in my post earlier (post #79).

People are emotional, I fully agree. People can be told and shown credible facts that a policy is beneficial to them and others, but you say it in the wrong tone, and it doesn't matter anymore. It's stupid, but it's how we are. But this is not a trait or method of argumentation that we should be advancing and giving credence to. All this talk about persuasion and having logical debates when in the end you're (not you specifically Joe) just trying to use your own version of emotional rhetoric. It's all fucking rhetoric. Don't feel high and mighty because you deem yours to be "logical"

Thank you for your response, and your acknowledgement of the utility of pragmatism.

To your other points: I disagree that it is all rhetoric. I also disagree that what is necessary is an insincere "buttering up". To me, most on the left (or at least the semi-far left types on say this forum or twitter) seem almost repulsed at the idea of showing anything but contempt for somebody not 100% on their side.*

Even in your response, (and I consider you a very calm and reasonable person), there seems to be a clear indication that talking with and hiding your contempt for independent voters nearly makes you sick.

Granted, you may be picturing a person who is entertaining far-right talking points. In which case your response might make sense. But if you are picturing somebody who agrees with you on everything but "transwomen in sports", or agrees with you on everything except "under-18 trans related surgical interventions", is that person still really that bad in your ideas?

I'm genuinely curious, where for you the line between "person I happen to disagree with" ends and "person who disgusts me with their views but I must pander to if I want to achieve progress" begins. Because for some people in this topic, it feels like that line is about 1-inch from where their opinions are. I'm not accusing that of you, because I genuinely find you measured and reflective, but I am curious, if you are comfortable sharing. Where that line is for you?

PS: *=For the record, many many many many people on the right are like this too.

Tyranthraxus posted...

They are literally calling for mass executions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9y9dcM5NQ

That's Fox News channel. Not some random blogger.

I mean he clearly said "transgenderism" and "ideology". Referring to the ideology and not the people.

That's simply not "literally calling for mass executions."

Don't get me wrong, he is clearly not tolerant of transgenderism at all, but that video clip is not a call to violence. You could accuse it of being a dog-whistle towards violence, but there are almost verbatim statements made by some on the left about the patriarchy or about the police.

I bet you have occasion to be around people who might call for the patriarchy to be torn down, wiped from the face of the earth, etc. Or people who say "all cops are bastards", and we need to "get rid of" the police, or something like that. Do you interpret those people as calling for mass executions?

I mean if you do in the latter case then yes I will grant you that the clip you posted would be equivalent. I wouldn't believe the former or the latter would be calls for mass murder, but if you believe both are then you are consistent in your principles of assessment.

However if you believe things like "when the far left calls to destroy, eliminate, or tear down some group or institution it is not a call for violence." then I don't know how you can in good faith claim the same kind of rhetoric from a political opponent as clearly a call for violence.

hockeybub89 posted...

You're certainly testing the limits of my civility. I can't help you if your response to LGBTQ people and their concerns is "I get you're upset, but you're in a political bubble and not handling this the way an outside observer like me believes is correct. Honestly, you're fundamentally behaving exactly like that other side that thinks you're pedophiles and threats to America." You're essentially saying you care more about harmony and good outcomes for all than the people being hurt.

You aren't allowing LGBTQ people to be emotional. You're saying they need to have their emotional moment, get it all out, and then they need to realize a lack of effort to educate the "other side" is responsible for the confused Republican stance and we need to all work on a compromise. Because you have admitted you don't actually know much about anything going on and need to do more research, but you definitely know there is no way anyone with any kind of platform or power in America is being malicious towards LGBTQ people.

I'm sorry you are interpreting it that way. How you are characterizing what I am saying is not accurate to what I am attempting to express.

I am not saying anybody needs to do anything, I just personally have a perspective about what is most effective, and was sharing that perspective. Nobody has to behave in a way I find most optimal, I make no demands or requirements of people in that regard. Rather I am expressing my opinion of what is most likely to help, not what is required. I am sympathetic towards people having emotional responses, and even if those responses IMO aren't useful towards the relevant goals, I would not deny a person a right to have such a response.

People are allowed their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Me disagreeing with a perspective is not me arguing that such a perspective should not be allowed to exist. I am quite pro free-speech (and freedom in general) and would not take such a position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT_gxpyavag

CyricZ posted...

No.

Because that cannot be proven.

We can only suspect given what we see them say and do, and draw conclusions.

And right now, looking at the given evidence, I'd say it's at absolute best giving-way-too-much-benefit-of-the-doubt "inconclusive" whether Republicans are trying to mass murder LGBTQ people or not trying to do that.

And that on its own is more than enough cause for concern. If we cannot casually determine whether or not our elected officials are fully intending to mass murder their citizens, we do not have adequate elected officials.

Personally, I feel quite confident that our elected officials are not fully intending to mass murder their citizens. And I would speculate most all independents would feel the same way.

Ironically you'd probably have to get all the way to the far-right before you would again encounter people who start believing the government intends to mass murder it's citizens.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You don't see it, because IMO you are in a bubble, but somebody can literally make the same type of argument from a republican bubble point of view. I've seen that kind of argument argument from real people. They argue bullshit like: "read between the lines, you think they aren't trying to groom kids? Then why are they doing drag time story hour? Drag shows are sexualized! (Points to a random drag video that does seem sexual) Why are they telling boys they are girls, and girls they are boys, and confusing them all? Remember how we were told it would stop with legalizing gay marriage and that any arguments otherwise were 'slippery slope fallacies'? Well, we were right to doubt that. It's not slippery slope, it's occams razor, etc..." (In all honestly they usually use even more severe rhetoric, but I don't want to repeat it because I think you get the point)

They will point to some youtube video or news story reporting on like the most extreme leftist gender thing in san francisco and be certain that it represents a national commonplace thing that is part of this big agenda from the democrats to idk turn all the kids gay or trans or confused or whatever.

And I've seen people talk this nonsense and I do try to get through to them. Because the only reason they think the way they think is because they are in a bubble they only shows them things that validate their pre-held beliefs.

For another comparison, let's take the word "grooming":

I'm guessing when you hear "grooming" to you it implies grooming children for sex with adults, that honestly is what it sounds like to me. But honestly, the groom/genocide comparison is a good example of bubble thing and needless ambiguity. Republicans can say "democrats are literally grooming children!" and then if you push them "what you do specifically mean by that?" and they can be like:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groom
to get into readiness for a specific objective : PREPARE

"I wasn't implying pedophilia! just that they were preparing them for indoctrination into leftist woke gender ideology!".

And it's shit like this where I get frustrated. People will use these terms, and anybody with sense can see others (particularly their political opposition) are going to interpret them in the most inflammatory extreme way.

So yeah, just like I don't buy it when a republican says "groomer" but pretends like they didn't mean to imply grooming for child sex, I also don't buy the whole "genocide isn't meant to imply mass murder." Both sides know what they are doing. They are using willfully inflammatory rhetoric that isn't "technically" inaccurate but paints the most extreme and emotional picture possible.

So much of the population can't get past rhetoric and that kind of shit gets us stuck. Some democrats repeat the word genocide and republicans think they are being accused of mass murder, some republicans repeat the word grooming and democrats think they are being accused of child sex rings. And both sides indulge this rather than cutting the bullshit hostility through calm, clear specificity.

And while it's clearly different, I do find some people in this topic to be in a similar kind of bubble to the bubbles I see republicans in. You really think 25% of the country (republicans) are working towards mass murder of LGBTQ people, and that 50% of the country (independents) are a-ok with it? Really?

I think you'd acknowledge that the republican's POV I discussed earlier is clearly delusional and is likely the result of them watching right-wing sensationalized news all day that feeds him this horseshit and never exposes him to anything that challenges it, right?

I'm not drawing an equivalence to you, but would you allow for the possibility that on some small scale that might be happening to you or the other people in this topic who think republicans want genocide?

Do you acknowledge the possibility that such a dramatic characterization of the scenario might be the product of watching a lot of sensationalized news, commentary, opinion, etc that all points in the same direction?

Here's a different question: If I were talking to a republican who was in a bubble believing an extreme and false narrative about the democratic agenda, what do you think I should say to them to most effectively challenge their perception?

PS: I am not directing my frustration at anybody in this topic, while I do find this kind of low-resolution high-emotion rhetoric frustrating and counter-productive for society, I don't fault, judge, or hate those who employ it. (I try not to hate anybody). These are important issues that people have strong feelings about. It can be very hard to be nuanced while emotional, particularly if your emotions have been manipulated by businesses who profit off of your engagement (and thus outrage). So even if I sound cold or robotic sometimes, I am sympathetic towards the fears and suffering of everybody.