Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 177: Still In Our Mom's Basement

(+) Yeah! (+)

Now that Ireland has #repealedthe8th, maybe we should too!

Bring back cruel and unusual punishment!
---

Maybe the real cruel and unusual punishment was the friends we made along the way.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Maybe the real cruel and unusual punishment was the friends we made along the way.

tfw when the memes are too real...
---

Not directly related to politics, but if you ever want proof that rich people in the US live by different rules, take a look at this shit:

http://www.kron4.com/news/california/stockton-businessman-sentenced-to-90-days-of-house-arrest-for-raping-child/1197685546
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Not directly related to politics, but if you ever want proof that rich people in the US live by different rules, take a look at this shit:

http://www.kron4.com/news/california/stockton-businessman-sentenced-to-90-days-of-house-arrest-for-raping-child/1197685546

Holy crap that guy looks like a villain on A Pup Named Scooby Doo

Except when Freddie goes to unmask him as Red Herring, he just yanks him into his van
---

kevwaffles posted...

Maybe the real cruel and unusual punishment was the friends we made along the way.

You know kev, we really are the cruel and unusual punishment
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Not directly related to politics, but if you ever want proof that rich people in the US live by different rules, take a look at this shit:

http://www.kron4.com/news/california/stockton-businessman-sentenced-to-90-days-of-house-arrest-for-raping-child/1197685546

This makes my fucking blood boil
Reminds me of this travesty:
https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape-case/index.html
---

Tag for the ongoing bullshit.
---

Important thread on the conflation that's been going on between Trump's disgusting policy of separating children from their parents at the border and the 1500 'missing kids':
https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1000927903759110144
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Important thread on the conflation that's been going on between Trump's disgusting policy of separating children from their parents at the border and the 1500 'missing kids':
https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1000927903759110144

Good to know. I hope this 1500 meme doesn't make things worse and more aggressive. It's been two weeks since ORR and ICE joined forces, then. Is that about the time this stat entered? ...Could it be that it's a reverse psychological move to make ICE look worse in the eyes of their many opponents, but it would end up giving them access to track down these kids and do more deportations and ultimately get what they want?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Important thread on the conflation that's been going on between Trump's disgusting policy of separating children from their parents at the border and the 1500 'missing kids':
https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1000927903759110144

Thanks for posting this, I knew the issues were technically different but thought they were a lot more related than they actually are.
---

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/under-pressure-from-trump-saudis-put-brakes-on-oils-rally/articleshow/64336412.cms
---

Yeah thanks for the post, I haven't been able to keep much track over the weekend so I've only caught cursory glances of the issue so it's nice to return to the full details.
---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

This is the kind of thing I think about anytime someone talks about the Democratic party needing to move towards the center lol
---

Kenri posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/opinion/international-world/centrists-democracy.html

This is the kind of thing I think about anytime someone talks about the Democratic party needing to move towards the center lol

That's really interesting. I guess maybe more centrists feel authoritarian government is likely to favor them, since they are in the center?

The Democratic Party mainly needs to be more inclusive of people with different beliefs. Tolerance of an idea, agreement with it, and fighting for it are 3 completely different things, and the Dems should stop conflating them.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The Democratic Party mainly needs to be more inclusive of people with different beliefs.

what does this mean?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The Democratic Party mainly needs to be more inclusive of people with different beliefs.

what does this mean?

In practice, stop ostracizing people who don't share all your beliefs, even the ones that are really important to you. You can think someone who supports defunding Planned Parenthood is bad, but if you refuse to associate with them, guess what, you have virtually no chance of winning their vote. And you may lose the votes of their friends.
---

red sox 777 posted...

In practice, stop ostracizing people who don't share all your beliefs, even the ones that are really important to you.

i don't see why that would be a preferable strategy. why would you "tolerate" ideas to get more votes if you have gigantic moral issues with these ideas? plus, the republicans aren't being all that inclusive to people with ideas they disagree with either.
---

For the record I agree with red sox here, in the sense that I think this is a problem and that it's more of a problem with left-leaning people than with right on average (though neither differ is really innocent here). I think that any real political discussion is dependent on demonstrations of good faith from all sides and I don't think that's the case in our country's political climate.
---

You guys are saying different things here. Red sox isn't saying "agree with the belief", he's saying "don't condemn the person because they hold that belief". (I think)

Yes, there is a point at which the belief becomes "bad" enough that this no longer applies.
---

I agree with red sox to an extent.

While Republicans will ostracize "RINO"s for not sharing their beliefs, at the end of the day they will support them over Democrats.

Democrats on the other hand, will completely abandon and even vote against allies who they may disagree on one issue with, such as gun rights or abortion, even when that person's more moderate beliefs are the entire reason that person is able to hold office in their state.

Dems are more willing to lose to support their beliefs, which sounds admirable, but the result is laws being made contrary to their beliefs, so it's actually bad.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

In practice, stop ostracizing people who don't share all your beliefs, even the ones that are really important to you.

i don't see why that would be a preferable strategy. why would you "tolerate" ideas to get more votes if you have gigantic moral issues with these ideas? plus, the republicans aren't being all that inclusive to people with ideas they disagree with either.

If you don't tolerate people who hold ideas you dislike and you lose the election, you won't be in a position to do anything to help your cause. Whereas if you won, you could. I didn't say you had to agree with the ideas, merely tolerate the people who hold them.

And Republicans are pretty darn inclusive of ideas. It doesn't matter what views you hold, as long as you vote R.

If you want to push your agenda as far as you can, to the utmost limit, you could be intolerant of all who oppose you....but you had better be sure you win the election then. If you lose after taking that attitude, you may find yourself in your worst nightmares.
---

pyresword posted...

You guys are saying different things here. Red sox isn't saying "agree with the belief", he's saying "don't condemn the person because they hold that belief". (I think)

i get that he's saying that but i just don't see many dems actually doing this...? perhaps i'm not paying attention, but i don't see many dems saying all people who are pro-life are nazis or something.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And Republicans are pretty darn inclusive of ideas.

constantly calling people you disagree with "SJWs" and "bleeding heart liberals" is your idea of being inclusive?
---

pyresword posted...

For the record I agree with red sox here, in the sense that I think this is a problem and that it's more of a problem with left-leaning people than with right on average (though neither differ is really innocent here). I think that any real political discussion is dependent on demonstrations of good faith from all sides and I don't think that's the case in our country's political climate.

Yeah, I've said it before. We're not THAT much better, but more than any other country US politics comes off to me like a highly divisive sporting event. Not sure if it's your competitive nature or what have you, but the way people talk about politics in the US often bears a scary resemblence to the way you talk about sporting events. The gloating, the antagonizing, the desire for the other "team's" "fans" to be upset or "salty". The media doesn't help but it's a people problem to be honest.

We have that too, especially with our exposure to American media - we basically treat the role of a PM in the same way you might treat the President, which is not how our politics should be. And as a result elections become about the two leaders of the parties, even though that's not who you're voting for. My ballot paper said Chris Matheson, not Jeremy Corbyn.

But we're still not quite as bad as in the US because we have multiple parties that have more of a say (though admittedly, not a lot of a say) which dilutes the intensity of the one-on-one aspect.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i get that he's saying that but i just don't see many dems actually doing this...? perhaps i'm not paying attention, but i don't see many dems saying all people who are pro-life are nazis or something.

I see quite a bit of this, but not here. Twitter mostly. I saw one the other day saying "those who think politics is a matter of opinion are people who are blinded by privilege," or something. So you're wrong, and a monster, to be right-wing. That's not helping the conversation one iota.

Granted that's just one tweet but it does happen, and regularly enough for me to have spotted a trend. But it happens on the other side too, obviously
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

but i don't see many dems saying all people who are pro-life are nazis or something.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but according to my recollection any time we've had an abortion debate on this board there have been many on the pro-choice side who have basically stopped just short of saying this.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And Republicans are pretty darn inclusive of ideas.

constantly calling people you disagree with "SJWs" and "bleeding heart liberals" is your idea of being inclusive?

I would take "bleeding heart liberal" as a badge of honor, myself. But the difference is Republicans don't act this way to people they know, only people they don't. If my friend or acquaintance acts like SJWs do, I won't think of him as an SJW, but as someone who cares deeply about civil rights. And you only really influence the people you know.
---

redrocket posted...

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but according to my recollection any time we've had an abortion debate on this board there have been many on the pro-choice side who have basically stopped just short of saying this.

that's not really the same thing - or at least that depends who the pro-lifers in that debate were. MWC and sephyg, aside from being pro-life, have a gazillion extreme, inflammatory and (i would say) ridiculous stances. so if they almost get called nazis i'm not convinced that's JUST because they expressed pro-life sentiments in a debate about abortion. (note: i'm not saying these two are nazis and it's ok to call them nazis. that's not the point i'm making.)
---

Plus I'd rather be called an SJW than a Nazi. SJW, snowflake, etc. do not really express moral disapproval any more than a criticism like "low energy." The GOP had that debate where all but one of the candidates agreed that Obama had good intentions but was just in over his head. Donald Trump even managed to say something good about Hillary Clinton at the end of a debate (that she was a fighter who never quit) while all she could think of to say that was positive about him was that his family was nice.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

pyresword posted...

You guys are saying different things here. Red sox isn't saying "agree with the belief", he's saying "don't condemn the person because they hold that belief". (I think)

i get that he's saying that but i just don't see many dems actually doing this...? perhaps i'm not paying attention, but i don't see many dems saying all people who are pro-life are nazis or something.

Really? Go to ResetERA and see the fucking extremism that they post on the regular there.

People who won't talk to their families because they voted for Trump. Who say that people should bring pain and death to Republicans and their families so they finally "get it" and stop being such bad people. Who wished Melania death during her kidney surgery because "she supports a racist and therefore is a racist also".

Look how many times I was attempted to be labeled a racist by people on this very forum. Or how you should ignore anything I post because you dislike my opinions.

How do you not see this happening?

How many of you outright insult people who are religious. Looneys that believe in fairy tales I believe is a phrase I have seen uttered at some point.

Look at the over labeling of people as alt-right, racists, fascists, or Nazis that the left does.

The political parties are so polarized right now it is remarkable. And the Russian ads they uncovered were ones that tried to fuel this polarization. On both sides.

I feel the left voters are ones that just can't disagree with you on something. They have to try and prove you are a bad person to themself or something because you believe differently than them. Which is just weird.
---

red sox 777 posted...

But the difference is Republicans don't act this way to people they know, only people they don't.

i've been called both of those things tons of times by republicans on this board so that's not really true.

if you mean "know" as in "know personally" you're still wrong, as i've been called these things (or variations thereon) by people i know in real life too (though then the number of times i've been called these things greatly diminishes, obviously).
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But the difference is Republicans don't act this way to people they know, only people they don't.

i've been called both of those things tons of times by republicans on this board so that's not really true.

if you mean "know" as in "know personally" you're still wrong, as i've been called these things (or variations thereon) by people i know in real life too (though then the number of times i've been called these things greatly diminishes, obviously).

I thought you lived in the Netherlands? I'm pretty surprised you've been called such things by American Republicans.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Plus I'd rather be called an SJW than a Nazi.

i'm not really interested in splitting hairs on what the "worse insult" is. yes, i agree that being called a nazi is worse than being called an SJW, but they're both insults.

if you're saying "you're wrong about social issues," you're respectfully disagreeing with me. if you're saying "you're a social justice warrior" you're basically calling me a dumbass. i take it as a harsh insult.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

redrocket posted...

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but according to my recollection any time we've had an abortion debate on this board there have been many on the pro-choice side who have basically stopped just short of saying this.

that's not really the same thing - or at least that depends who the pro-lifers in that debate were. MWC and sephyg, aside from being pro-life, have a gazillion extreme, inflammatory and (i would say) ridiculous stances. so if they almost get called nazis i'm not convinced that's JUST because they expressed pro-life sentiments in a debate about abortion. (note: i'm not saying these two are nazis and it's ok to call them nazis. that's not the point i'm making.)

If those two were the only targets of this attitude, I wouldn't have even posted. But that attitude is thrown at the entire pro-life side.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I thought you lived in the Netherlands? I'm pretty surprised you've been called such things by American Republicans.

well ok, in real life i've never been called these things by american republicans (it COULD have happened, though - i've met muffin in person).
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Plus I'd rather be called an SJW than a Nazi.

i'm not really interested in splitting hairs on what the "worse insult" is. yes, i agree that being called a nazi is worse than being called an SJW, but they're both insults.

if you're saying "you're wrong about social issues," you're respectfully disagreeing with me. if you're saying "you're a social justice warrior" you're basically calling me a dumbass. i take it as a harsh insult.

I don't take SJW to be a huge insult I guess. I would prefer to be called a bleeding heart liberal than "severely conservative" or whatever would be its opposite.
---

And I would also say, I think objectively, there's a huge difference between calling someone dumb and a Nazi. Lots of people are dumb. The Nazis killed millions of people. On purpose. Because they hated those people. These things are not in the same stadium.

And I hear a lot of liberals saying they are afraid of "normalizing" speech they dislike. Nothing normalizes stuff as much as comparing everything under the sun you disagree to the worst thing in the world. If you compare bakers of wedding cakes to Nazis, at best, you will be tuned out. At worst, you will normalize Nazis - you will make people associate that word with refusing to bake a cake rather than with mass murder.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Plus I'd rather be called an SJW than a Nazi.

i'm not really interested in splitting hairs on what the "worse insult" is. yes, i agree that being called a nazi is worse than being called an SJW, but they're both insults.

if you're saying "you're wrong about social issues," you're respectfully disagreeing with me. if you're saying "you're a social justice warrior" you're basically calling me a dumbass. i take it as a harsh insult.

I don't take SJW to be a huge insult I guess. I would prefer to be called a bleeding heart liberal than "severely conservative" or whatever would be its opposite.

Snowflake and SJWs and treehuggers are making fun of someone on a topic. Of the three, snowflake is actually probably the closest to the following below. Because it speaks to emotionally being insecure or imbalanced.

Racist, Fascist, Alt-Right, Nazis is trying to debase someone's moral character as a person.

There is a huge difference.

Though, I think some liberals view them the same.
---

If your point is that comparing people to Nazis is not very helpful, I agree. Otherwise I don't know why you are sticking to that example.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And I would also say, I think objectively, there's a huge difference between calling someone dumb and a Nazi. Lots of people are dumb. The Nazis killed millions of people. On purpose. Because they hated those people. These things are not in the same stadium.

absolutely. but again, that's not what this argument is about.

you were arguing that republicans are being inclusive. i'm saying that i don't find constantly calling people you disagree with "dumb" to be all that inclusive. yes, saying someone is a nazi isn't even in the same category, but that's beside my point.
---

Sceptilesolar posted...

If your point is that comparing people to Nazis is not very helpful, I agree. Otherwise I don't know why you are sticking to that example.

Well, his entire point was. The left is more likely to write someone off as a worthless person if they disagree with them on a single issue.

I think that is true. BUT, I must also counter that the Right has a core part of their alliance which are in some cases the same way. Say pro-choice, and that core group is not going to take your candidacy serious at all. Same with a core group with guns.

I don't think you are literal monsters over the guns thing, but I do know a good portion of the anti-abortion crowd do consider those for abortion to be monsters.
---

Corrik posted...

Sceptilesolar posted...

If your point is that comparing people to Nazis is not very helpful, I agree. Otherwise I don't know why you are sticking to that example.

Well, his entire point was. The left is more likely to write someone off as a worthless person if they disagree with them on a single issue.

I think that is true. BUT, I must also counter that the Right has a core part of their alliance which are in some cases the same way. Say pro-choice, and that core group is not going to take your candidacy serious at all. Same with a core group with guns.

I don't think you are literal monsters over the guns thing, but I do know a good portion of the anti-abortion crowd do consider those for abortion to be monsters.

I was actually thinking this exact thing. I feel like Democrats as a whole are considered baby murderers by the right wing, just for voting Democrat.
---

I mean, Republicans aren't exactly paragons of virtuous civic discourse either. But Corrik is right, they generally don't attack the moral character of their opponents.

And notice that the religious right used to do that, with the whole "moral majority" stuff. After 30 years of this, and achieving basically none of their goals, they appear to have given up on the strategy.
---

Corrik posted...

Racist, Fascist, Alt-Right, Nazis is trying to debase someone's moral character as a person.

"racist," "fascist" and "nazi" are definitely insults (well, usually. "klansmen are racists" isn't necessarily an insult). but uh... tons of people proudly call themselves alt-right. so that often wouldn't be an insult.

it COULD be an insult if you call someone alt-right who doesn't self-identify as such and doesn't want to be associated with the alt-right (like, say, scott adams). but most of the time saying someone is "alt-right" is just a factual statement.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And I would also say, I think objectively, there's a huge difference between calling someone dumb and a Nazi. Lots of people are dumb. The Nazis killed millions of people. On purpose. Because they hated those people. These things are not in the same stadium.

absolutely. but again, that's not what this argument is about.

you were arguing that republicans are being inclusive. i'm saying that i don't find constantly calling people you disagree with "dumb" to be all that inclusive. yes, saying someone is a nazi isn't even in the same category, but that's beside my point.

I think his point is that they are more inclusive to people who are conservative or conservative leaning. They are less likely to canabalize someone who is 90% on their side because they are liberal on one issue. the old argument about republicans falling in line. Yes, they will still talk shit about those people and call them RINOs, but at the end of the day they will still turn out to vote for them against an actual liberal.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"racist," "fascist" and "nazi" are definitely insults (well, usually. "klansmen are racists" isn't necessarily an insult). but uh... tons of people proudly call themselves alt-right. so that often wouldn't be an insult.

A lot of people proudly call themselves Nazi's too, and marched with them in Charlottesville.
---

red sox 777 posted...

But Corrik is right, they generally don't attack the moral character of their opponents.

Remind me who is President again?
---

Dancedreamer posted...

A lot of people proudly call themselves Nazi's too, and marched with them in Charlottesville.

of course, that's why i added the "usually" caveat.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But Corrik is right, they generally don't attack the moral character of their opponents.

Remind me who is President again?

Let's look at Trump's criticisms of people:

Crooked Hillary
Little Marco
Lyin Ted
Failing New York Times
Low Energy Jeb
Etc.

All of them relate to either performance, or dishonesty. Performance is obviously amoral, and Trump has made it pretty clear that he doesn't consider dishonesty to be a moral failure. And most people would not rank it up there with murder or bigotry.
---