No.8964[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1619062304639.jpg (32.71 KB, 500x375, 4:3, Forget-it-snoopy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Modern America today appears to be rather cleanly divided between two strictly divided social groups that both act in such a way that they can not only be analogized to warrying tribes, akin to ancient Romans fighting ancient Celts, but are approaching that of utterly alien separate species, akin the xenomorphs fighting the humans in the famous Sigourney Weaver helmed 'Alien' franchise.
On the one hand, you have white Christians who identify as nationalists (or, at least, act as such). This folds neatly into the conservative movement and the Republican Party specifically in terms of both of those actively seeking these people out as supporters, although of course one can be both a conservative and also a Republican while having none of those traits (please do not view this thread as being based on the premise that all Republicans/conservatives are nationalists). They genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their ethnic bloodlines as transplanted Europeans of some stripe embodies them with a long, prestigious heritage of intellectual worth, with everything from architecture to artworks to musical pieces demonstrating this civilizational inheritance. Similarly, as Christians they genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their faith tradition makes them an elect class among the general mass of humanity, with their prudence and virtue not only setting them upon a pedestal of superiority among other faiths but giving them a clear understanding that they are the anointed who can guide a fallen world into the light. These tie completely to nationalism given that, as these strident political activists argue, the Founding Fathers created the U.S. to be a white Christian nation based on the idea of a 'shining city on a hill' in which human rights are respected for those who deserve such rights in contrast to the mobs who claim freedoms but do not deserve them due to their wickedness.
On the other hand, you have everybody else. This includes not just everybody who isn't perceived as white and perceived as Christian but also anyone who doesn't fully line up on board with nationalism. In definition terms, certain classes of people such as the LGBT and others also apply here regardless of whether or not they identify as Christian or white, white Christian nationalists not considering somebody to qualify as a 'real American' / 'real Christian' if they don't conform to a certain narrow understanding of what that means.
In statistical terms, I would say that the former group constitutes approximately 1/3 to 1/5 of the population (the vote total for Donald Trump's recent failure at re-election can be considered a kind of ceiling, counting-wise). The latter is the 2/3 to 4/5 majority. I think.
These two tribes have completely distinct value systems in how they approach the world such that their senses of right and wrong are not compatible. What one sees as good another sees as evil and vise versa (think of, say, the response to a same-sex couple kissing at a park bench... is it 'ah, young love' or 'these deviants are poisoning the minds of the kids nearby on purpose'). These two tribes also have entirely different notions of reality itself to where they can't even agree on basic facts. For example, the coronavirus epidemic can be seen as either a public health tragedy or a nefarious conspiracy, global warming related issues can be an unfortunate result of mismanaged economic policy or a plot by radical socialists to take over using environmentalism as cover, and civil liberties for transgender people can be a no-brainer given general human rights for all or a disgusting act of perversion of the natural order designed to sexualize children. Little middle ground appears to exist.
It's often been proposed that some kind of a community-based cleavage should take place. The nationalists should live in certain areas. Everybody else should get, I suppose, everywhere else. Alternately, the large bulk of the country could go to the nationalists and certain places, particularly urban centers, would be for the general populace. The details are complex either way. The nationalists would, of course, be allowed to do to their fellow nationalists whatever they see fit in the process of secession given the self-rule principle.
I'd like to open this up to general discussion. Could secession be the solution to this tribal divide? What would happen if we had clean segregation in which it was widely understood certain races, religions, et cetera didn't live past certain lines.
Is this not essentially what has resulted from peace efforts in Northern Ireland? In Israel? In South Africa?
Is this not what happened with the break-up of Yugoslavia, in broad terms, as well? A very horrific division, yes, but a necessary one in order to achieve long term peace? Maybe?
What are your thoughts? Please be honest. Even brutally so, if you must be.
[I have absolutely now clue how to illustrate this topic, picture-wise, but since this is a depressing subject have a depression-tinged cartoon.]
I'm generally for secessionism and balkanization, as a rule.
But, I don't really think white nationalist Christians are as common as you seem to think.
Certainly, despite being right-wing, I've only encountered a handful, and those seem to be fringe types who don't seem to show up outside of the internet in much strength.
And I suppose I ought add as well, they seem to be combated pretty universally as I see by other right wingers.
All this aside, however, I think I agree with your idea, albeit still being a touch uncertain about the sizes or specific nature of those you're referring to.
Having a place everyone could go would be ideal. Communists could have their communist utopia, for instance, anarchists, their anarchistic commune, authoritarians their authoritarian place, capitalists their trading hubs, and so on.
Big issue I see is, states seem to typically want to expand, not shrink, and also states with problems love the scapegoat an enemy offers to unify their malcontents.
I'm not sure how you could reliably maintain peace between these smaller micronations. Though, I think also, wars would be a lot more mild the more you shrink things.
Big nations can kill a lot of people before they take notice.
Interesting idea, nonetheless, and it does match up with my thinking for what I'd like to do at least.
I just want to get my own stretch of land, and not worry about the matters of the outside world any more.
Grown a bit tired of it all. Figure maybe I can get likeminded people to come in, though I will also say, I'm a tad worried about getting Waco'd if I do.
You're making an important point that I want to focus on (not that your other points aren't valid, necessarily), but I feel as if I need to rephrase it as well as expand it in order to understand it properly.>"If we split up America into multiple country-like communities, even if it's just three or something like that total so the divisions are easy to explain as ideas, there would need to be an outside enforcer to keep the peace between them.">"Human nature being what it is, even a nonviolent secession would result in agitators within certain groups thinking 'now's our chance' and deciding to use the situation as an opportunity for total domination, maybe with communist militants deciding that a communist sub-region isn't enough as they vow to conquer the whole of the former U.S. (or, really, any other tribe's militants being like that).">"It's going to take a whole buttload of effort to either persuade or by force require people in each community to allow their counterparts in other communities to live as they see fit and even reasonably expand as they see fit, maybe with the non-nationalists living in the broadly non-extremist society finding that they simply cannot morally accept that in nationalist land, say, all children found to have been born LGBT are punished by death (or, really, this happening with any other tribe... like the capitalists thinking that the non-extremist land is stealing natural resources via regulation that should belong to them and vowing revenge)."
This is quite interesting. Is there anything that you'd like to add to these observations? I'm very curious.
Well, I'd say I hadn't actually stated the first one, but it's a great point nonetheless!
My thinking was more that it is just outright not possible to maintain peace.
But, I suppose if you had an outside enforcer specifically set to enforce neutrality between the areas, that would
you could maintain that neutrality.
That is of course the hard part.
My initial thinking was that you never really could guarantee peace, but that potentially might still be better, albeit unstable.
One thing to add that you made me think of with the third one is, it will likely be necessary to require free travel, bar extenuating circumstances, between these 'states' if you will.
Otherwise, you may have for example someone who has grown up in an authoritarian area desiring freedom, and creating a tribe within a tribe for that purpose. Which, I'd say defeats the point of these split societies, if they just hit the same political fights we have but smaller. Albeit that might still be better.
I dunno if the division is as clear-cut as you make it seem.
I've seen a decent number of far-right/alt-types on /pol/ profess neo-Paganism instead of Christianity, and they seem to be accepted by other far-right/alt-right types.
It seems you're making largely a Blue Tribe / Red Tribe division, except throwing the moderate reds in with the blues? (I'm using Scott Alexander's terminology from https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
.) Personally, I belong to the Gray Tribe.
- moderately economic nationalist (but NOT ethnonationalist)
- moderately libertarian (I still believe in roads, environmental laws, and the border) with a slight conservative lean
- voted for Trump in 2016 (as the lesser of two evils) and for Biden in 2020 (again, as the lesser of two evils)
- extremely pro-1A and pro-2A
In regards to some of your particulars:>the response to a same-sex couple kissing at a park bench
I think nothing of it.>the coronavirus epidemic can be seen as either a public health tragedy or a nefarious conspiracy
I wear a mask (either N95 or P100) whenever I'm out in public. I signed up to get vaccinated as soon as I became eligible. But I also sometimes call the virus "the Chinese Coronavirus" online as a reaction against the TV talking heads criticizing Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus" as somehow """racist""" (as if such terms of geographic origin haven't been used for decades, e.g., "The Spanish Flu", etc.). And I don't consider it particularly far-fetched that virus escaped from the Wuhan virology lab and the Chinese government conspired to cover it up. >global warming
I believe that anthropogenic global warming is real. I'm not particularly fond of many of the proposed solutions or the virtue-signaling in this area, though. I think some form of carbon capture will probably save us from catastrophe in the coming decades. I think probably a small
carbon tax would be reasonable though.
So, overall, I would prefer living in our existing country than to live in either a blue-dominated or red-dominated subsection. Our existing country is balanced, with the reds countering the excesses of the blues, and the blue countering the excesses of the reds. >Could secession be the solution to this tribal divide?
What about existing national assets, in particular nuclear weapons? Would dividing the country weaken us relative to China and Russia? That is my biggest worry.> these strident political activists argue, the Founding Fathers created the U.S. to be a white Christian nation
What do you mean by "Christian nation"? In some respects, the US was (and still is) a Christian nation (e.g., Christianity is the majority religion, public ceremonial things are imbued with Christianity) but in other respects it's not (e.g., religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution).
In perspective terms, it appears to me that the Republican Party and the conservatives movement are, in majority terms, white Christian nationalist groups to where their policy positions as well as their rhetoric and other aspects come from white Christian nationalist beliefs. To pick two specific examples, there's the generally accepted conservative and Republican view that the Chinese as an ethnic/racial group have a moral stain upon themselves due to the coronavirus, and thus it must be called "the Chinese virus" as well as "the Kung Flu" and such. There's also the generally accepted conservative and Republican view that government functions must have mandatory Christian only prayer before events begin, which efforts by other faith traditions from Muslims to Satanists and beyond being refused from participating on the grounds that it violates the sectarian heritage that our Founding Fathers supposedly wanted to create.
I'm personal terms, I'd like to state that as somebody who's not only both bisexual/pansexual but also transgender in the nonbinary sense as well as a former Christian... I'm essentially unable to engage with any dialogue whatsoever with any conservatives and Republicans on any website designed for conservatives and Republicans. Neutral locations with strict ethical policing of comments is one thing. On their own turf, within a few seconds I can expect to see "f*gg*t", "k*k*", "tr*nn*", et cetera.
I honestly don't believe that I would be physically safe were I to be in a situation around a certain number of political conservatives at this point of tribalist thinking among them. If you see this as paranoia, I'd like to politely ask you how many times you've seen, say, your fellow individuals on the right do something like complain in public about unsolved murders of transgender people in the supposed wrong place at the wrong time or state their happiness at the ability of teenagers to engage in gender affirming health care due to legal reforms. And I'd politely ask you in contrast how many times you've seen, say, your fellow individuals on the right deliberately referring to someone transgender using an incorrect name, expressing references to drug use and prostitution when we're brought up, insisting on using terminology such as "biological females/males" and "transvestites" as well as "ladyboy", "shemale", "shim", et cetera instead of the basic decency of "man", "woman", and "transgender", speculating on the eternal destination of the souls of transgender people when we die, and in blatant terms insinuating that we have some kind of instinct to sexually prey upon children.
I understand that this is a tangent to the main point, but I'm going into depth because I want to be clear about something. Secession appears to me to be fundamentally about safety. Period.
I want to live in a place in which I'm not considered to be a second-class citizen (or, at worse, either property or life unworthy of life) by nationalists who have moral systems utterly alien to my own, with compromise being not just practically impossible but ethically out of the question. This isn't just a transgender thing. It's also an ex-Christian thing. And other things.
Admittedly, this will mean allowing conservative Republicans setting up a place where they'll rule with an iron fist and anyone unfortunate enough to be born there 'wrong' will be... yeah. I might be able to accept that? Maybe? If it means peace?
I concede that this is my perspective, and if somebody is a white Christian nationalist themselves then the tables are turned. They feel genuine hurt and suffering at my existence and that gets even worse if I'm a fully accepted and welcomed member of society. If we take nationalism out of the question for a moment, I can also understand that many white Christians might genuinely (and, perhaps, rationally) believe that as America becomes a clearly majority non-white nation while more and more people leave the faith as well... they might likely be discriminated against or worse as a suddenly created minority. It's not that they hate non-Christians and non-whites. They just are, rationally, concerned about negative treatment and would like to turn inward. An impulse that can be argued isn't just logical but maybe even noble... that's why monastaries became a thing, after all.
I apologize for this being rambling. I did need to get it off my chest, however. Feel free to ignore the personal nature of this... it's, as I stated, tangential.
>>8975> I'm essentially unable to engage with any dialogue whatsoever with any conservatives and Republicans on any website designed for conservatives and Republicans. Neutral locations with strict ethical policing of comments is one thing. On their own turf, within a few seconds I can expect to see "f*gg*t", "k*k*", "tr*nn*", et cetera.
Possibly related: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/
:>The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.>>FOX’s slogans are “Fair and Balanced”, “Real Journalism”, and “We Report, You Decide”. They were pushing the “actually unbiased media” angle hard. I don’t know if this was ever true, or if people really believed it. It doesn’t matter. By attracting only the refugees from a left-slanted system, they ensured they would end up not just with conservatives, but with the worst and most extreme conservatives.
File: 1619070199722.jpg (67.25 KB, 960x720, 4:3, EVWSV1QUMAAJpZw.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>8975> To pick two specific examples, there's the generally accepted conservative and Republican view that the Chinese as an ethnic/racial group have a moral stain upon themselves due to the coronavirus, and thus it must be called "the Chinese virus" as well as "the Kung Flu" and such.
I disagree that is aimed at ethnically Chinese people. It seems to be aimed at the authoritarian People's Republic of China (PRC) ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). I haven't seen any such negative views about Taiwan, even though they are ethnically Chinese.
I don't believe that the blue tribe / grey tribe / red tribe framework... necessarily works here when we talk about secession. Those are about beliefs and concepts without necessarily involving exclusion and violence. That's not to say that Alexander's observations are either irrelevant or wrong. Personally, I consider him to be quite an intelligent commentator on a lot of things, and thank you for bringing his views up.
To be specific, secession is not designed to solve the problem of rapidly increasing social division. I don't know, to be frank, how that problem can be solved. I'm not even sure if "solving the problem of division" is really the right mental framework to go here... obviously, being a dick to somebody just because you disagree with them is stupid, right? Yet disagreement, even passionate opposition, is human and can't really be said to be that inherently bad.
I'm fine with living in a world where one side says "raising the minimum wage kills jobs and increases the burden on a free market as the state grows ever stronger, and you're a loon for denying that" and another says "greedy capitalists like you are raping the earth". While not exactly... great, I guess, that's not really that negative either? They can yell at each other on cable and then shake hands later before going out for seafood together.
My issue is fundamental divisions in the inherent identities that people have. Being born Jewish. Being born transgender. Being born white. Etc.
A debate between a white Christian nationalist and a Jew isn't really a "debate" in any sense. The Jew isn't an opposing side. He's the argument. If this is tennis, the Jew isn't the underdog facing off against the champ. The Jew is the ball. The Jew's basic right to exist is what's being called into question.
In these circumstances, it appears that it might be a regrettable but logical outcome that the white Christian nationalist is allowed to live in an area where Jews, actually, aren't allowed to live. This might have to happen in order to prevent, well, fighting like animals. I suppose.
Federalism isn't relevant here because all American citizens by virtue of being that are entitled to a clear-cut sense of basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its many amendments. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of assembly. The right to bear arms. Etc.
Secession means that these no longer apply. So, say, certain political conservatives are free to create a Christian theocracy in which non-Christians are not allowed to exist, let alone exist and express themselves in public. This is intended to be a solution to the current problem of identity-based tribalism.
>>8975>To pick two specific examples, there's the generally accepted conservative and Republican view that the Chinese as an ethnic/racial group have a moral stain upon themselves due to the coronavirus, and thus it must be called "the Chinese virus" as well as "the Kung Flu" and such.
I would say you're attributing a motivation where is not present as a consequence of a completely different understanding of the terminology used.
China is a place.
A nation. A country.
I do not think people are saying "ethnically-chinese Americans", for example, nor even really Chinese citizens who had nothing to do with it.
This would be the same as assuming everyone who says something negative about America in the Middle East is racist towards Americans. Or, at least, that's how I am seeing it.> There's also the generally accepted conservative and Republican view that government functions must have mandatory Christian only prayer before events begin, which efforts by other faith traditions from Muslims to Satanists and beyond being refused from participating on the grounds that it violates the sectarian heritage that our Founding Fathers supposedly wanted to create.
This is the first I've ever heard of this, so I'm afraid I do not know to what you're referring to, or its specifics, or who would be supporting, or against it.>I'm personal terms, I'd like to state that as somebody who's not only both bisexual/pansexual but also transgender in the nonbinary sense as well as a former Christian... I'm essentially unable to engage with any dialogue whatsoever with any conservatives and Republicans on any website designed for conservatives and Republicans. Neutral locations with strict ethical policing of comments is one thing. On their own turf, within a few seconds I can expect to see "f*gg*t", "k*k*", "tr*nn*", et cetera.
I'm skeptical of the reality of this claim, but I can understand your fear of it.>If you see this as paranoia, I'd like to politely ask you how many times you've seen, say, your fellow individuals on the right do something like complain in public about unsolved murders of transgender people in the supposed wrong place at the wrong time or state their happiness at the ability of teenagers to engage in gender affirming health care due to legal reforms.
Neither of these seem reason to me to feel physically safe in someone's company.
Certainly, I wouldn't think myself reasonable if, because in a group of leftists, they did not complain about 2nd Amendment infringements, or state their happiness of the right to speak freely as they see fit, that I am in danger of those people harming me.> And I'd politely ask you in contrast how many times you've seen, say, your fellow individuals on the right deliberately referring to someone transgender using an incorrect name, expressing references to drug use and prostitution when we're brought up, insisting on using terminology such as "biological females/males" and "transvestites" as well as "ladyboy", "shemale", "shim", et cetera instead of the basic decency of "man", "woman", and "transgender", speculating on the eternal destination of the souls of transgender people when we die, and in blatant terms insinuating that we have some kind of instinct to sexually prey upon children.
While I've run into the first, I've run into not a single instance of the rest.
Except for 'biological' perhaps, but that's lumped up with some stuff I don't think reasonable.>I want to live in a place in which I'm not considered to be a second-class citizen (or, at worse, either property or life unworthy of life) by nationalists who have moral systems utterly alien to my own, with compromise being not just practically impossible but ethically out of the question. This isn't just a transgender thing. It's also an ex-Christian thing. And other things.
Understandable goal. My only thing is, I'm not really sure who you're talking about, as I've not really seen what you seem to be pointing to.
Nonetheless, as long as you're not advocating for harm to anyone, I don't really care what you perceive in this regard, since the specific 'who' is less important.
That's why I didn't go too deep into the lot, the first time around.
The idea doesn't need these details that would be debated. Idea applies to any tribalism, including the tribalism you, I'd say, show, in regards to your view of your political opposition.
>>8972>"So, overall, I would prefer living in our existing country than to live in either a blue-dominated or red-dominated subsection. Our existing country is balanced, with the reds countering the excesses of the blues, and the blue countering the excesses of the reds."
There's a rather clear asymmetry going on here, no? The non-far-right mass going too far means something like taxes becoming too high, or natural resources being squandered, or college campus public debates getting suffocating in terms of censorship, or guns being unfairly confiscated, or such. Terrible things altogether. But nothing outside of the general sense of political viewpoints that can be discussed by regular people without discrimination and hatred, let alone outright threats of violence to the point of actual attack.
Political conservatives going too far means that an American society that's already teetering on the edge of full blown widespread Christian supremacy and white supremacy under dictatorship crosses the line into full blown authoritarianism. The right-wing activists decide that it's not enough to keep yelling on street corners about the eternal fire the passersby are going to receive and decide to accelerate the process. Even for those that keep getting held up to the media right now (those Richard Spencer types who conservatives will say about "Well, he's wrong, but he's not calling for violence and as a white Christian man should be able to feel pride in himself just like other groups, if Jews have the ADL and blacks the SPLC why can't we have our own counterpart? Besides, your the real intolerant bigot for refusing to give those whites and Christians proud of themselves a fair shake."), I'd say that their claims at nonviolence would ring fairly hollow if they really had free reign. Personally.
In the broad sense, I think social division in terms of bias and slant is a big problem, but a manageable one. Hatred and bigotry is worse. It's horrid to put down somebody in and of itself, to be cruel for the sake of cruelty, but outright dismissal of others' humanity is quite an issue. Incitement to violence and actual violence crosses a line.
I apologize for getting rambling again. However, in summary, I'd say that while I understand the desire for balance... I also want protection. To have those who refuse to see me as human removed from where I've got to live and subject to their own community's standards. If that means self-rule and hermit kingdoms under tyrannical control, so be it... maybe.
>>8972>"What do you mean by "Christian nation"? In some respects, the US was (and still is) a Christian nation (e.g., Christianity is the majority religion, public ceremonial things are imbued with Christianity) but in other respects it's not (e.g., religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution)."
In this situation, I'm referring to the conservatives who view America as a "Christian nation" because the Founding Fathers were all of one side as far as beliefs were concerned and deliberately structured the new nation with the understanding that laws would be based on Christian principles alone and applied to Christian citizens alone. Or so the claim goes. And that, in current times, it should be understood that both a)American democracy cannot survive if the majority fails to be Christian because only Christian have the moral worth and intelligence to support a democracy, if things go to heathenism there will be decay into anarchy as well as b)freedoms such as that of assembly, the right to bear arms, et cetera should be seen as clearly meant for just citizens only, so banning Satanists from holding public rallies or whatever is perfectly fine with our values. Freedom is earned. It's for those that deserve freedom. Or so this conserative line states.
>>8983>I'd say that their claims at nonviolence would ring fairly hollow if they really had free reign. Personally.
I think this might be the root, honestly.
It's a question of perspective. Of viewpoint.
We see radically different realities. We look at eachother in radically different ways.
Now, ironically enough, it's part of what makes me agree with the idea of balkanization in this way. As, similarily to how you feel there's danger from the 'right', I'm concerned with how many seem to believe as you do, that there is some massive amount of violent monsterous right wingers out there who'd kill everyone they didn't like if they had the chance.
I am worried what that rhetoric might well bring. Or, well, perhaps I should say, I'm worried what that rhetoric has already brought, given what happened to Aaron Danielson, at the hands of a far-left extremist who believed these types of things.
I'm very concerned that will become a more and more common thing, as more and more people believe as you do, despite what I and others actually believe or advocate for.
I'm quite concerned people like myself and my family may end up being hunted down by extremists because we do not politically align with them.
Now, I'll admit I'm less
concerned with it, being that I'm well armed, in a decent sized family, with a strong enough bond to the local community that I can feel relatively confident that they'd assist.
But I'd still not have to rely on my own rifle, especially with how flakey I view the government when it comes to defending yourself from a partisan mob.
A peaceful solution would be vastly preferable.
>>8983> American society that's already teetering on the edge of full blown widespread Christian supremacy and white supremacy
Uh, what? Actual literal white supremacists are a tiny
percentage of the population. The media plays them up way out of their proportion. And likewise as to people who want to repeal the Free Exercise clause.>I'd say that their claims at nonviolence would ring fairly hollow if they really had free reign.
I'd agree with that, given historical precedent like the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Nazi Germany.
I cannot even begin to accept this. Two points come up immediately. And I don't think that they can be refuted.
First, why is it that street crimes against Asian-Americans in general and Chinese-Americans specifically are happening? They're Americans. They're here. Presumably... they'd likely be emigrants from China, maybe? Or the descendants of such? Wouldn't that therefore mean that a random Chinese-American person I run into inside the U.S. would likely be anti-CCP? Why... harm him then?
Second, why does the rhetoric go on to instances where conservatives talk about "the Kung Flu" and start promoting conspiracy theories about the virus being a bioweapon with the supposed commentary of, like, "it's typical for the Chinese to lie like that" or "the only people who don't see it as a bioweapon are in the Chinese pocket". That's not really what somebody who's only focused on how much the CCP sucks (and, by all means, screw those horrific dictatorial monsters) would do.
>>8989>First, why is it that street crimes against Asian-Americans in general and Chinese-Americans specifically are happening?
I'd need to hear the specifics you're referring to, but, I'm not really aware of any major spike.
I recall hearing some reporting claiming
it, but I don't consider it substantiated.>"it's typical for the Chinese to lie like that" or "the only people who don't see it as a bioweapon are in the Chinese pocket".
Both of those relate to the state?
Like, rather obviously?
I'm sorry, but I don't really know how to take this.
I'm pretty sure regular citizens don't even have the means to develop viral WMDs. At least not outside of crazy megacorp types, but that doesn't seem to be what's being referred to here.
If I said "The iranians are developing nukes in secret", do you think I am referring to Iran, the nation, and its government, or Iranian-Americans living in Boston working a 9-5 job at 10$ an hour?
>>8989>First, why is it that street crimes against Asian-Americans in general and Chinese-Americans specifically are happening?
I'd say for similar reasons why criminals take advantage of peaceful BLM protests to commit crimes. There's no coherent conservative reasoning for attacking random Asian people.>"it's typical for the Chinese to lie like that"
"The Chinese" can refer to the Chinese government rather than all ethnically Chinese persons.
I'm conflating actual violence with mere expressed hatred as well as the desire for social discrimination, which I understand is intellectually sloppy. Yet I feel as if the tennis analogy still applies. And your percentage maybe is a reflection of an overly narrow definition?
As an ex-Christian who's studied Judaism to the point of pondering conversion, I naturally am concerned about growing anti-Semitic violence in the U.S. at a personal level (beyond just, of course, the natural ethical sense of right and wrong that I have as a human being). It's more than that, though. It's mandatory Christian only prayers before public events. It's taxpayer funding for sectarian institutions, including those who actively use that money while openly discriminating against people in their services. It's rhetoric that people who say nice things about Israel are putting another country's loyalty above their own. It's the ever sung refrain that American is and always will be a "Christian nation" such that we ever stopped either being majority Christian in population terms or basing government policies on sectarian Christian beliefs... that would mean the end. And that Christians must defend their heritage and status "by any means necessary", or so some talking points go.
Most people, I would say, believe that whatever faith tradition you have adopted (including the adaptation of no faith at all) shouldn't change one's ability to be fully accepted and even celebrated in American society, never being considered a second-class citizen let alone made to be afraid. That's what I'm saying. It's complex.
I understand that you're dismissing this all as mere tribalism and a matter of demonizing the opposition, but for me this is a matter of basic existence as well as self-identity. I was born in certain ways. I also have chosen, due to very important reasons that are a crucial part of who I am, to identify voluntarily in certain ways.
I wish to live in a place where I have a reasonable expectation of physical safety, at bare minimum, but in truth what I want is a world like that of how Mister Rogers would've designed things: acceptance and tolerance to the point of celebrating differences, with all welcome. I understand that's a tall order. However, I not only believe that it's possible. I'd say that it's likely, eventually... what with life as a regular person in America in 2021 being far freer and just generally better than that of somebody in 1921 (and then compared to 1821 as well as that date compared to 1721).
I don't just oppose nationalism in intellectual terms. I oppose it as a matter of fundamental ethics. I also have to fight against it in terms of basic safety. I don't have a choice.
>>8993> but for me this is a matter of basic existence as well as self-identity. I was born in certain ways. I also have chosen, due to very important reasons that are a crucial part of who I am, to identify voluntarily in certain ways.
I get that. As I said, I fully recognize this is what you believe.
It's just that, I think people can also be mistaken.
These presumptions you have are not ones I believe are accurate. And while I understand those presumptions make you feel unsafe, that does not change my disagreement.
I am concerned where this way of thinking leads, as political violence seems to get more and more acceptable for the public eye.
I do not want more Aaron Danielsons lying dead in the street because someone assumed what he believed and what he'd do if he ever had power.
A side effect of that, as it happens, is I'm quite supportive of the idea of balkanization, as I don't want to see an escalation into a war in our streets, as seems to ever be closer approaching.
I apologize for the sloppiness... I mean "those who are not far right" and should've been more clear.
I'm struggling with terminology here because in my view there's a gigantic category difference between regular socio-political debate and the debate between nationalists versus everybody else.
American Constitutional government in the sense of having a representative democracy held by via clear-cut legal rules to be strictly limited in what powers the state has versus the people... that's something that's usually accepted as a matter of ground rules for political debate, and something fundamental happens if one party to the debate genuinely and sincerely doesn't believe in that system of government such that they want to set up an authoritarian state.
I don't quite agree with this framing because from my perspective the government shouldn't really be engaged in mass banning of personal property and related takings of person property for unreasonable reasons from the outset. Yet the U.S. federal administration does so as a matter of poor public policy and has done so for some time. While regrettable in a practical sense as well as horrid from an ethical sense (and so clearly contradictory to our Constitutional rights), I don't agree with how conservatives segment the issue. And, thus, I see this as a broader problem with state control of Americans' private lives rather than "oh, but actually this one case is different, this is violence". And thus it's a matter of general debate.
To me, a street cop putting somebody in the hospital for selling raw milk, smashing bottles up in the process, as well as a DEA agent using civil asset forfeiture rules to render a family homeless because their bed and breakfast once had customers sell weed there and... well, I can go on as far as examples... to me, this is on the same framework as gun confiscation. It's horrid. I can't quite mentally view it the same as directly advocating for the overthrow of the current system of government, though, nor the incitement of violence against people for things that they are and cannot choose to stop being.
I understand that conservatives tend to see gun rights as off in a little bubble so that, say, the exact same person will in the same conversation loudly proclaim "from my cold dead hands" to "we'd stop having mass shootings if we put those violent video game programmers behind bars"... I don't quite find myself able to think like that. To me, it's all the state going too far.
Which is terrible, don't get me wrong, but the state going too far is different in a clear sense from not having the same state at all.
File: 1619075739217.png (138.01 KB, 800x350, 16:7, mlp-twilight-sparkle-readi….png) ImgOps Google
>>8995>I'm struggling with terminology here because in my view there's a gigantic category difference between regular socio-political debate and the debate between nationalists versus everybody else.
Eh, I dunno. I'd say that the Soviet Union was closer to Nazi Germany than to the United States in many aspects. For some reason, the media plays up the threat of far-right extremists while ignoring far-left extremists (by which I mean, e.g., literal Communists, as in actual Soviet-style Communism).
>>8987>I think this might be the root, honestly. It's a question of perspective. Of viewpoint.
Agreed.>We see radically different realities.
Also agreed.>We look at each other in radically different ways.
I don't actually believe that this is the case. Weirdly enough, I think that the problem is that we're nearly identical in terms of how we view the world, at least when it comes to the sub-topic in question. But since we have different underlying perspectives, we're both... not sure how to put this. Dancing the same steps in different ballrooms? Taking the same train to different stations? Forgive me, these are weird hours.
To put things in a clearer way, we both have our own political views as far as foreign affairs, spending, taxes, et cetera goes as well as a base human impulse of "Please don't hurt me", to put it crudely. We even appear to share not only the specific instinct that a good short-term solution is self-defense through responsible gun ownership but also the general instinct that a good long-term solution is some form of secession.
I suppose it's regrettable, though, because my thoughts about those two solutions are because I'm sincerely afraid of people *like you* (phrasing this carefully since it doesn't mean you personally) and you're sincerely afraid of people *like me* (ditto, doesn't mean me personally).
I will say this, though... I think that my fear of nationalism is more solid given multiple factors, not just nationalist rhetoric but the fact that in the historical sense nationalists have murdered countless Americans as well as that in more recent times they've done other horrors. I understand your fear of certain minorities and how it's parallels my own mix of concerns with both direct violence as well as corruption of democracy into dictatorship. I can't see it as that rational, but then I guess that's understandable given our dissimilar backgrounds.
The American Nazi Party is a thing. There is no Jewish version of it. The Klan is a thing. There is no transgender version of it. Widely loved politicians can say that non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to overpopulate compared to Christians. I'm not familiar with any Satanist doing the same.
I don't agree with the conservative framing that one doesn't count as a white nationalist if one doesn't commit acts of violence. I would also disagree with the notion stated by other conservatives that one doesn't count if one avoids both doing violent acts as well as advocating for such things slash using violent rhetoric. And I would go beyond that to say that the conservatives who argue that you can't be a white nationalist if your viewpoints reflect personal preferences that you don't necessarily claim to want to make into government policy yet.
In my opinion, a white nationalist is defined as something like "an individual who believes that the white race exists as a fundamentally separate group dissimilar to other groups while additionally claiming that said race possesses special attributes that place them outside of others' status and advocating for the benefit of said race to the detriment of others within the context of national pride".
So, I'd view a pundit of the Tucker Carlson type stating that a given race cannot achieve American freedoms due to its negative qualities in comparison to white Americans (like the actual Carlson's comments about Arabs being something like "f--king monkeys" or the sort such that the Iraqi invasion was a waste of time since they can't support democracy) to be acting as a white nationalist. I'd also consider such a person discussing how they wish to prevent America from experiencing ethic changes that shift it from being majority white while articulating some kind of conspiracy theory about how this declining whiteness was done on purpose to intentionally destroy the country... also a white nationalist, to me. As like the real Carlson. I understand that conservatives would see things differently.
>>8994>political violence seems to get more and more acceptable for the public eye>I don't want to see an escalation into a war in our streets, as seems to ever be closer approaching
I agree in broad terms. However, I think I see a more nuanced situation. To break it up:>Centrists and moderates, including those who are center-left and center-right, have always opposed political violence and are the same now. I suppose they might be even more opposed recently in the sense of being more socially active in pro-tolerance efforts. Not sure.>Swap in "liberals and progressives" in the above and it all remains true.>Far right extremists have always supported political violence and remain so committed. They could perhaps be said to be more and more active lately, but that's hard to quantify. Not sure.>Replace the word "right" with "left" in the above and it all remains true.>Conservatives have moved farther and father to the right in both general and specific terms, with this including greater tolerance for political violence. It's not clear if this is a permanent thing based on long-term cultural trends, a short-term thing based on Trump that'll fade once conservative leaders come in who don't share his love of political violence, a medium-term thing based on narrow social changes lately, or whatever else. On the one hand, conservatives in general don't advocate for, let alone engage in, political violence. At the same time, they generally disconnect their dehumanization of certain groups (Hispanics, Muslims, transgender people, et cetera) from political violence (i.e. "I hate you but that doesn't mean I want to kill you"). They also display a perspective maximizing violent acts by minorities (such as the Dallas shooting of police officers by a New Black Panther Party militant) to the point of obsession while minimizing violent acts by non-minorities (such as the Capitol building insurrection) to the point of either ignoring them completely or building alternative facts to support their beliefs (such as the conservative doctrine that said insurrection was done by Black Lives Matter agitators attempting to frame the right-wing). Conservatives as a last point also frame collective moral responsibility in unidirectional terms (such that the aforementioned Dallas shooting is a "problem for the black community because they culturally don't police their own") with few exceptions (such that a bunch of the aforementioned Captiol rioters being white is never considered to be the collective ethical failure of all white people).>Libertarians have been opposed to political violence when applied to other, regular people and that hasn't changed. In terms of political violence against state power, particularly when the state engages in violence against victims who react in self-defense, libertarians appear to have grown more and more violent as a direct reaction to the U.S. federal government being more and more violent. I'm genuinely not sure how this will end, but it should be emphasized that going from "Cops aren't necessarily your friend" to "At this point, ATF agents talk like Anakin Skywalker after slaughtering the sandpeople, and I won't pretend to care if they get the lava" is a response to provocations and not like libertarians are inherently militant.
Again, I understand that's how you perceive it, but I don't personally believe it accurate as I see things.
For one, I don't believe that conservatives have moved further to the right at all, and most evidence I've seen suggests it's the reverse, with the left becoming more and more extreme while the right stays put.
But I'm starting to wonder if there's any point in arguing this, as it hasn't appeared to go anywhere at all so far.
Can you give me particular examples of minorities such as blacks, Jews, transgender people, and others becoming either more violent in their actions or becoming more accepting of violence?
Rather than engaging in a lot more of "look, you just haven't seen the information I've seen" talk, which may be right but doesn't appear that productive, I'm curious what specific facts conservative beliefs on this matter come from.
I don't make these identitarian categories and judgments on those completely irrelevant aspects of a person's physiology.
Perhaps that is the source of this issue.
If you thinking these identitarian terms, I can understand why you would have a very different outlook on things.
File: 1619108090344.jpg (280.85 KB, 1973x3143, 1973:3143, raphtalia-d9de80c72b5a8f30….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9000>I don't agree with the conservative framing that one doesn't count as a white nationalist if one doesn't commit acts of violence.
I don't agree with that framing either, although I wouldn't call it a conservative framing.>In my opinion, a white nationalist is defined as something like "an individual who believes that the white race exists as a fundamentally separate group dissimilar to other groups while additionally claiming that said race possesses special attributes that place them outside of others' status and advocating for the benefit of said race to the detriment of others within the context of national pride".
OK, I had been using the term "white nationalist" to denote someone who wants a nation-state with special legal privileges for whites. Doing some quick research on Wikipedia, I see that your definition might be more widely used.
I'm not sure what precisely you mean by "additionally claiming that said race possesses special attributes that place them outside of others' status" but it sounds like it might be white supremacism rather merely white nationalism.
Depending on what you mean by "fundamentally separate", I might say that the belief "the white race exists as a fundamentally separate group" is objectively mistaken, given that are many people with various percentages of racial genetic heritage.
In general, I don't see any problem with people feeling pride in their own ethnic group or looking out for its interests in the sense of making sure that it is not treated worse than other ethnic groups. The problem comes when people want special privileges for their ethnic group or seek to favor those of their own ethnic group. (In a sense, this is kinda like nepotism.) >Carlson's comments about Arabs being something like "f--king monkeys" or the sort such that the Iraqi invasion was a waste of time since they can't support democracy
Hmm, I had interpreted his comments not being about racial characteristics but rather about the culture. >I'd also consider such a person discussing how they wish to prevent America from experiencing ethic changes that shift it from being majority white while articulating some kind of conspiracy theory about how this declining whiteness was done on purpose to intentionally destroy the country.
I'd imagine that the number of people who worry about whites becoming a minority is much greater than the number who think it is some sort of a conspiracy.>>9009
A lot of left-leaning folks seemed to be accepting of the violence committed during BLM protests (except when the violence was committed by right-leaning individuals). Leading up the 2020 election, there were increasingly amounts of violence committed by Antifa.
I'm not sure how to process your response. I don't believe in identitarian categories and judgments inherently either, though I believe them relevant if somebody else chooses to make the argument about them. If we're talking about ideal breakfast foods and somebody goes "Anybody who puts pineapple on pancakes should be shot", then I guess the conversation is now about pancakes? I don't really see why that would be a failure on my part, though. I didn't make it about that. They did.
A gigantic number of American conservatives genuinely and sincerely appear to believe that as white Christians they're threatened by me and other minorities, and they advocate everything from personal armament to possible secession under the background of segregation as a response to that threat. I'm trying my best to express my empathy for them as fellow Americans, particularly as a fellow American who is a former Christian and former conservative. It's... difficult. I'm trying.
I'm kind of astonished, though, at the asymmetry involved. The Holocaust is a thing. Decades upon decades of antisemitism, homophobia, and transphobia is a thing. Currently prejudiced social policies up to an including federal government actions are a thing.
I would consider an African-Jewish-American woman being afraid of a new German-American Protestant Christian neighbor, maybe to the point of her arming herself, to be doing something wrong and arguably be engaged in immoral prejudice. She should judge the new neighbor she hasn't even met by his character, not his category. At the same time, there's a... common sense element here? I would have a basic empathy for why they emotionally react how they react, even if they're fundamentally wrong.
Were the roles reversed, empathy would... perhaps not possible for me. Basic niceness, of course, is required since everybody should be entitled to their own political self-expression. Yet we shouldn't be kidding ourselves. That random right-winger's fear of the local Jew being out to get him at some point has absolutely no connection to objective reality whatsoever. It's basically at the same level as "I can't walk outside without my lucky striped socks or else I'll lose the game" as far as evidence and reason goes.
Does this make sense?
In practical terms, it appears to me that conservatives define concepts such as "white nationalist" so that nobody can ever be one. And people who are not conservatives use dictionary definitions. This makes conversation... trying.
I didn't get into "Christian nationalist", but I suppose the situation is almost exactly parallel. Maybe not worth chatting in depth. Or maybe so, not sure.>In general, I don't see any problem with people feeling pride in their own ethnic group or looking out for its interests in the sense of making sure that it is not treated worse than other ethnic groups.
It seems that this isn't inherently a problem in the very abstract intellectual sense (so, well, I agree in a sense). However, it breaks down completely in terms of lived reality (so, well, I disagree in a sense). There are a lot of analogies that can be brought up.
There's nothing inherently prejudiced about liking frogs. About liking cartoon frogs. About liking cartoon frog memes. About, to be even narrower, liking the Pepe the Frog meme.
At the same time, internet culture has evolved in such a way that something like... maybe most of the people (if not, at bare minimum, a very large percentage of the people) who have a Pepe the Frog avatar on a given online platform or who post him frequently or otherwise express an obsession with him do so as a kind of 'gang sign' like tribal affiliation. Thus, the reaction of me and most ordinary people informed on the issue when we see SkaterBoi99 commenting on a blog with an avatar of Pepe holding a dildo is to remark "Oh, God, he's going to joke about molesting kids or how handsome Hitler is, isn't he?" or such.
People who like Pepe (which includes, honestly, myself) have to accept the fact that the culture has changed and be willing to alter how we communicate as a result. Not necessarily never posting Pepe again. But knowing the contexts.
In that vein, I would like personally to openly express pride for my own ethic heritage as both a Finnish-American and an Irish-American. If I do so, I must accept the fact that the U.S. has over two hundred years had widespread social movements of incredible power loudly proclaiming "White Pride" as a tribal sign to promote themselves when they engage in not just advocating for prejudice in the abstract but engaging in prejudicial violence in the streets. This isn't just history. It's present.
This shouldn't mean that I can never, ever bring up my own background as somebody who just so happens to be white, especially when it's relevant to a productive discussion (like a debate on the history of Ireland) and where it's understood that my appreciation for my heritage isn't dogmatically hardline (like a debate on the different natures of pride marches, LGBT ones versus Mexican ones versus Irish ones and so on).
File: 1619109999701.jpg (34.07 KB, 560x560, 1:1, 1543811917764.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9012> "I can't walk outside without my lucky striped socks or else I'll lose the game"
Oh, an ancient meme! And now I've lost. :-)>>9012>That random right-winger's fear of the local Jew being out to get him at some point has absolutely no connection to objective reality whatsoever.
Yes, and identitarian thinking is how the right-winger got disconnected from reality. I've seen many threads on /pol/ where someone posts some legit grievances against individuals who happen to Jewish and then makes a faulty generalization to all
Jews. And furthermore the examples cited on /pol/ are always of Jewish elites, those who are in the top income brackets. Yet they never bother questioning their faulty generalizations to all Jews.
Then I don't think I can sufficiently answer your question as I disagree with the premise of it
As to the rest you wrote, I can only really say I don't think it's as big a group as you seem to, which I've said already a few times
File: 1619110674105.jpg (244.44 KB, 640x928, 20:29, white-pride.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Yes, unfortunately the term "white pride" has been associated with white supremacy in popular culture. And I think it is quite unfortunate that society (and especially the left) is willing to so quickly let white supremacists take over such terms and other symbols/memes, especially with the "cancel culture" that plagues modern America. It really has a tendency to drive a lot of people farther to the right.
>>9004>For one, I don't believe that conservatives have moved further to the right at all.
To pick two data points of personal relevance to me as one who publicly tried to support the John McCain and Mitt Romney Presidential campaigns:>When McCain ran for President in 2008, myself and others stated not only that his solid personal character and considerable government experience made him an ideal choice but that McCain's caring personal life as the father in an interracial family represented something nice about America. I genuinely loved the idea of Obama being the first black President, which as a symbol represented a kind of permanent turning away from slavery and other parts of the country's past, but he seemed to be an empty suit who used nice speeches to poorly mask a glaring lacking of good political policies (as the Onion put it when it ran a story titled something like "What a Non-Surprise, Time Runs the Fluffiest Obama Puff Piece Ever"). McCain would say in public, with me agreeing, basically "He's a cool dude but he's really damn wrong.">When McCain died, a significant number of conservatives not only refused to feel sad at his passing but appeared to restrain themselves from actively celebrating. McCain deliberately chose to keep the current God of the conservatives movement, Donald Trump, from his funeral given the understandable animosity between the two, with Trump having a history of viciously out-of-bounds personal attacks on the man. Not only is McCain's legacy completely absent from the Republican Party, but his surviving family members openly supported Trump's impeachment and removal from office.>When Romney ran for President in 2012, it was deja vu all over again. The primary issue was economics. The tea party movement codified things. Romney portrayed Obama as an incompetent boob who's increased taxes, regulations, special favors to certain industries, and the like held back the country's potential. At the same time, it clearly wasn't as if Obama was a horrid individual personally. Race didn't matter, as it it didn't in 2008 (from the Republican side). Romney himself played up his internationalist style and appeal to different American groups... he's a guy who speaks in French in public, for God's sake, to put it bluntly.>Romney voted twice to impeach and remove conservative Lord and Savior Trump, becoming the first Senator in history to cross party lines in such a situation. He received swift punishment. While still in office, his legacy is completely gone. CPAC organizers said that he wouldn't be welcome at that event, the largest gathering of American conservatives with the whole nation, even to the point of claiming (horrifically in a glib and supportive way) that he'd be physically assaulted if he tried.
It's, well, rather... hard for me to relate to conservatives who claim that the right in general hasn't swung to the far right. I personally went from somebody who put Republican politicians on my YouTube channel to somebody who now, honestly, can't picture ever voting for a Republican ever again for the entire rest of my life. I've been an active contributor to political blogs that went from "Nobody cares if you're not straight" to "You're not allowed to post if you're not straight". It's rather blatant, to be frank. Denying it seems to me like denying the earth is round.
Is the root of this you believing as a conservative that certain people expressing viewpoints based on race and other categories isn't "identarian" and therefore wrong while it's bad if others do it?
Is this the whole "only people of a certain identity can engage in 'identity politics' but it's not that if we do it" thing?
So, "as a conservative, I don't want to live in a neighborhood with queers" is normal political speech and not objectionable while "as an antifa member, I don't want to live in a neighborhood with Trump supporters" is?
I genuinely want to understand the premises behind your beliefs.
I'm really, sincerely trying to understand.
What factual evidence have come across to you in your life that makes you feel as if you should be inherently afraid of me and people like because of our born category status?
Where does this come from?
The general tone as well as the specifics of your posts dovetail nicely with what I've seen from multiple conservatives. They're concerned about street violence turn into mass murder incidents and then into civil war to the point of possible genocide, maybe. Thus, they arm themselves. And they consider secession.
At a basic psychological level, I cannot begin to see where the notion that a large chunk of millions of Americans want to get you because you're a conservative while they're black/gay/trans/whatever comes from. The belief exists. Obviously.
What is it's origin? What is it's function? Why?
No. My issue is I don't know who your talking about, where these people are, how many they are, and what they actually believe.
You point to groups I know the name of You point to groups I know the name of, but are saying they believe things I've not seen, in the numbers you describe.
My issue is more than I don't know who you are talking about, when you say they should have their own separate place to live away from everyone else.
I guess you could say my worry is that you try to stick me into a white nationalist society because I am right wing come out when I fundamentally oppose those types of authoritarian collectivists.
This is true. My trouble here is just that I don't know who is being talked about where they are, and what numbers they have.
>>9019>At a basic psychological level, I cannot begin to see where the notion that a large chunk of millions of Americans want to get you because you're a conservative while they're black/gay/trans/whatever comes from. The belief exists. Obviously.>>What is it's origin?
I think it's mainly that conservatives are using descriptors like "race=black" or "sexual_orientation=gay" as proxies for membership in the Blue Tribe. E.g., when Republicans support policies designed to suppress black voters in cities, it's generally not rooted in inherent
anti-black prejudice but instead because blacks tend to vote for Democrats. Mainstream conservatives are generally fine with those who are clearly in the Red Tribe even if they are black (e.g., Ben Carson), gay (e.g., Milo Yiannopoulos), and or Jewish (e.g., Ben Shapiro).
The fear comes from what has already happened.
As I said, there has been outright murders in cold blood ambushes of right wingers.
I am not sure what your pointing to with the identity labels.
I have met many conservative black people. I have met many conservative transpeople. I have met many conservative Jews.
My fear doesn't come from conservative Jews.
My fears are towards radical leftists, who have already started using violence on those they decide to label nazis, as I see it, unjustly.
I really think the fundamental problem here is that identitarian way of looking at things that you seem to have.
I do not think that way. That seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding. We seem to have to very different ways of looking at people.
Let me speculate, maybe...
If anarchists represented, say, 5% of the population, I might understand being concerned given that statistics are what they are and that represents enough raw numbers to prevent a fundamental social problem. For example, the metroplex where I live in has 6.5 million residents. Thus, 5% of them being anarchists means 325,000 anarchists on the loose. That's enough to overwhelm the police and others in terms of future political violence.
A caveat should be noted. Being an anarchist doesn't inherently mean being a violent anarchist, and even that latter belief doesn't mean being in Antifa. Historically, most anarchists have followed the lead of Tolstoy and other thinkers who developed the ideology and have avoided violence as contrary to the inherent goals of anarchism, which is a world without authority and coercion (understandably enough, since political violence can't be separated from people in some authority using coercion on others).
However, taking as a given the understandable connection between the narrow belief system and the militant activists using the system as cover for what they do, the leap makes sense. Were that to be the case, I guess I could in the very, very narrow sense understand conservatives fears of being attacked by anarchists (either in Antifa or out of it).
I don't believe that the premise is correct, however. Anarchists appear to me to be more like 0.1% of the population or so. They also appear to be strictly monitored by both law enforcement and non-governmental groups to where they can't quite be said to be... threat in the social sense. Maybe in the individual sense (i.e. "my work colleague John gives me the creeps because he's a tattoo-covered Satanist wearing all black who mouths off that Trump supporters should be lynched"). Not, though, something worth arming oneself necessarily. Let alone breaking up America through secession necessarily.
Conservatives appear to engage in a set of interlocking categorical assumptions, though, that make arming oneself and maybe even breaking up American needed. I think. It's not really complicated.
First, the violence of antifa is morally blamed on all anarchists. Second, that blame extends to all individual perceived as "far left", which is a nebulous category and can be stretched into "everybody that really gets my goat is far left" such that, say, "Bob the Libertarian isn't really a libertarian but a far left threat because he wants to end the war on drugs". Third, that blame extends to everybody perceived as "left" in the extremely broad sense, this moral collective responsibility meaning that if a black sociopath shoots a police officer that de facto in the minds of conservatives every single other black person pulled the trigger with him. Fourth, the concept of "left" gets redefined such that everybody who isn't far right is described as "left". Thus, conservatives would describe Senator Romney as "left" due to Romney's ethical principles putting him in conflict with Trump. Former President Bush may be "left" due to Bush's senior role in McCain's funeral, McCain interpreted as a current fallen hero of the "left".
And thus, I guess, conservatives can take the rare as lightening strikes and shark attacks instances of antifa violence and that of related groups and therefore stretch it to "I'm worried because the guy next door is a trans man, that's why I've got an AR-15".
Is this a helpful way to think about this?
To be honest, I'm feeling frustrated to a point of a little anger at how you and other conservatives appear to believe that everyone who isn't you engages in "identarian thinking" and the related "identity politics" such that somehow as conservatives you're magically immune from this. Even if other conservatives so blatantly act like that. Even if this is a matter that identarian thinking in the first place comes from cognitive basis issues in thinking that all human beings with human brains have, everyone with a pulse being susceptible to attribution bias and confirmation bias to where they can easily miss the forest for the trees (not because they're evil or stupid but just because they're human).
This is frankly smacking of the "I'm so smart and unbiased because I use **facts** and **logic**, so I can be sure that the right-wing is always right because we don't enslave ourselves to **emotion** like the **SJWs** and their ilk" doctrine that you see from the likes of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, having sadly gotten way too popular among even those who aren't argumentative types.
>>9028>To be honest, I'm feeling frustrated to a point of a little anger at how you and other conservatives appear to believe that everyone who isn't you engages in "identarian thinking" and the related "identity politics" such that somehow as conservatives you're magically immune from this.
Huh? In the very post that you just responded to, I was talking about conservatives on /pol/ that fell into identarian thinking.
And I don't claim that I'm perfectly able to avoid the trap of identarian thinking myself. I do my best to try to avoid it, but I recognize that I'm only human and imperfect.
This is kind of a crying example of the utterly alien perspectives on reality that I see when talking to current conservatives.
I genuinely cannot understand why it's the moral fault of everybody who's not far right that the far right has been able to take over certain memes, symbols, terms, etc.
If you identity as somebody who's a conservative that's opposed to the far right, shouldn't seeing the far right steal cultural things that shouldn't belong to them as well as witness the far right constantly attempt to cloak themselves with you and people like you as a kind of shield... make you hate the far right even more as well as wish to see their influence destroyed even more?
Back when I was a socially active Republican, I personally viewed situations where somebody would do something like post on Twitter "Rape culture can't be a thing, after all SJW chicks can't make dudes get it up in the first place" only to be immediately banned before then going "How dare Twitter censor me for being a conservative"... I would publicly flame the hell out of those douche-bags, not just because they're horrible in and of themselves but because they were making me look like a dumbass by expecting me to fall for their lies like that.
Why has this changed?
I suppose my issue is I don't see it as the far right doing that. I see it as the left doing that.
Certainly it was not conservatives saying that the sign it's OK to be white was racist.
Or conservatives, for that matter, declaring the OK symbol to be racist.
I would say this is a consequence of the left predominantly controlling most of the cultural institutions of the country.
This, and I don't think they have any reason to defend white pride, as at least with most every conservative Ive spoken to, race is irrelevant, not something you should have pride in.
It shouldn't matter if you are black or white, that has no bearing on the quality of your personal character. Thus there's no reason to be prideful of it.
Race doesn't tell you much of anything about somebody's character after all.
I hate to be rude, but I can't figure out how to put this nicely.
If you've blinded yourself into only viewing conservatives positively and only witnessing them doing positive things, while in contrast you only view non-conservatives negatively and only witness them doing negative things, then I don't think that this is a problem that other people can solve. This is a 'you' problem. You need to actively seek out alternative sources of information different than what you've currently been consuming, and you need to also actively seek out those with life stories greatly different than that of your own.
I recognize that this is framed as a personal attack, and I'm sorry for doing so. I understand that you might not believe I'm actually sorry, but for the record I do apologize. I appreciate what I think can be objectively described as an admirable patience on your part in continuing a conversation that's emotionally uncomfortable.
If we are being rude come and let me be completely direct with you:
The level of humorous required to assume yourself completely infallible, while those with alternative worldviews who do not align with your own suggests that you do not have the ability to hold this conversation.
Moreover, giving your statements here, I have no reason whatsoever to trust anything you stated thus far on the groups that you believe should be booted from our society.
I have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt when you state to me directly that I am "blind" because I do not agree with your particular ideological perspective on a group and its significance.
I have no reason whatsoever do think that you would not want me in together with the same authoritarians, Because of your ideological blindness
Again I must stress the hubris of assuming your enemies are incapable of perceiving reality, while your own presumptions are evidently infallible
This is precisely why I am worried about the rhetoric being spread. This is precisely why I had caused to be afraid. This is precisely why I own a rifle, for that matter.
I do not want some ideological nutter who assumes me to be a nazi just because I am right wing to try to kill me and my family, as happen with Aaron Danielson.>I understand that you might not believe I'm actually sorry, but for the record I do apologize.
An apology stated as you do something is entirely worthless. The whole point of an apology is to say that you believe what you did was wrong, and you regret it
If you must apologise in the same breath as you do something, you clearly do not believe it to be a wrong action. Rather, you are using it to shield yourself.
I do not accept the apology.
I want to elaborate on why exactly am so annoyed with this post, here;
You have assumed my position, when I have never suggested anything of the sort. I have never once at all stated that conservatives are invaluable. I have never once stated that all leftists are evil. I have never suggested any point I think that conservatives can do no wrong. You have pin that position to me unjustly.
As far as I can see the reason for it is purely that I have disagreed with you politically. That is unacceptable.
I never even denied that white nationalists and nazis exist. Yet you throw this to me.
You speak of emotions but clearly lack the emotional capability to hold this conversation in the 1st place yourself. Don't act as though I am somehow the restrictor, when you have things to me that I've never said, and declared me blind for it
>>9024>I think it's mainly that conservatives are using descriptors like "race=black" or "sexual_orientation=gay" as proxies for membership in the Blue Tribe. E.g., when Republicans support policies designed to suppress black voters in cities, it's generally not rooted in inherent anti-black prejudice but instead because blacks tend to vote for Democrats.
The overall intellectual premise of what you're saying is correct. I believe that this is probably the case to a certain extent practically as well. Yet it also seems fundamentally impossible to remove this from prejudice because of how human brains work.
We are rationalizing machines. We don't like to view ourselves as immoral. Thus, when we do something wrong, we find a way to twist and turn the facts in order to maintain our own worth.
Steve the Conservative might simply find transgender people to icky because he was raised with ironclad gender roles, to the point where he'd have trouble dating a straight cisgender woman if she wore leather pants and a tight Iron Maiden shirt while talking out of a pierced lip. And he applies his individual hang ups to his politics, arguing that transgender people ought to be kept out of the military. His social life has always been exclusionary and prejudiced, remaining so with Trump.
Thomas the Conservative has no mental connection to transgender people whatsoever, having never even spoken to one, and by every likelihood would be equally unable to understand the concept of hating transgender people (the same way that, say, punching somebody for being a New York Yankees fan is a 'does not compute' concept for people not into baseball). He also has a devout, religious like faith in Donald Trump. Destiny has chosen Trump to rescue America from not just socialism specifically but barbarism and decay in general. Thomas sees that Trump is going after transgender individuals, and he raises his thumb. If it's good enough for the Donald, then it's good enough for him. His social life has not been exclusionary and prejudiced before, but it now is.
John the Conservative has had a life exposing him to quite a lot, and he's had transgender work colleagues while also interacting with them here and there generally. He has no particular reason to see their characteristics as having any meaning, much that he might notice having a boss with bright blue hair but wouldn't consider hair color to have any actual relevance to life really. John isn't a Trump supporter. However, he's a loyal conservative Republican who's been one for years, and he's grown ever more isolated from friends and family as a result. In turn, his ideological allies have embraced him more. John additionally finds that critics of conservatives and Republicans appear to exaggerate to the point of lying, and he's grown tired of social divisions in society getting worse and worse. When John sees the backlash to Trump's actions against transgender people, John decides to side with Trump, and he justifies himself with the notion that while there's nothing wrong with being transgender per se that they tend practically to be whiny SJW extremists who need to grow up and stop being special snowflakes. His social life has not been exclusionary and prejudiced before, but it now is.
Do you see what I'm getting at? The negativity comes about for different reasons. Yet it practically winds up being the same.>Mainstream conservatives are generally fine with those who are clearly in the Red Tribe even if they are black (e.g., Ben Carson), gay (e.g., Milo Yiannopoulos), and or Jewish (e.g., Ben Shapiro).
I don't think that this is the correct way of viewing things. To be specific, Milo is famous due to being an openly gay cisgender man who throughout the majority of his life stated that homosexuality was evil and wrong, publicly discussing his orientation in the sense that it was a badge of shame for him (analogous to an open alcoholic who constantly badmouths both booze and themselves). In addition to that, he's famous for vitriolic attacks against other LGBT people who aren't gay cisgender men, preaching hatred for transgender people, women, and bisexuals. His fame has also been magnified due to his public comments which were widely interpreted to support pedophilia (I'm not too familiar with the exact details, and so it's possible that his claims of being deliberately misunderstood may be right).
Milo is thus incredibly useful to conservatives in multiple ways, all of them quite horrid for LGBT people. He reinforces the conservatives "LGBT people do what they do as cover for trying to creep on children, recruiting them for perversion" stereotype. He reinforces as well the "homosexuality is an infliction to be corrected, like a medical problem as doctors used to admit before SJWs made the guidelines change" stereotype. Even worse, he reinforces general hatred of LGBT people in the sense that he regurgitates what straight cisgender bigots say, thus allowing for "I know that the tr*nn**s are disgusting, one of their own even admits it".
In that case I would default to the Thumper standard.
" If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all".
There has certainly been more than a few instances I've felt much the same, and I've held my tongue in relation to them.
Most of the hypotheticals, for example, were what I'd consider strawmaned easy prey unconductive for anything other than dragging conversation into mud flinging.
Yet I held my tongue and did not engage in such mud flinging
I do not look at individuals in an identarian way. I am somebody who looks at individuals in a personalized way as well as a moralistic and political way, given my beliefs, just like most people. I also, just like most people, recognize when others choose to bring up categories and labels that I should understand why they do that as well as attempt to see how I can improve the situation.
To be frank, I feel like a firefighter pointing to different buildings up in flames and being told "Are you an arsonist? Why are you so focused on fire? Why are you engaged in making a society where more things burn down."
I recognize that you're attempting to respond to my points, but I don't really see my inherent goal of understanding your position in depth being shared by you, as you appear not able or not willing to reciprocate.
It appears clear-cut to me that three things are going on at the same time:>Political activists who perceive it in their self-interest to hurt X people decide to hurt X people intentionally, being immoral in this but not acting out of an underlying malice.>Political activists hurt X people because of their inherent views about X people, rejoicing in their immorality and malice.>Political activists have no interest in X people and make no intentional actions against X people, but the practical effect of what they do is to hurt X people such that they either don't know about this or don't care.
Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult (although it appears, to me, to be at least theoretically possible) to disentangle these and quantity them practically. I'm also not sure how to tailor solutions to the problems in each case. Likely, this is a matter of gradual, long, multifaceted, and slow social progress through personal interactions, adding up over time to a broad cultural shift. I suppose?
If you are attempting to understand me I have to say you're doing a very bad job of it. Especially given you keep assuming my positions, rather than going off of what I've actually said. You also seem keen to ignore the context of what I am replying to.
That post was in reply primarily to >"What factual evidence have come across to you in your life that makes you feel as if you should be inherently afraid of me and people like because of our born category status?"
Specifically the latter portion,>"because of our born category status?"
I have attempted to make clear to you over and over again that I do not think anything of you for your particular biological or whatever nature. I do not care if you are gay. I do not care if you are Jewish. I do not care if your black. I do not care if you are trans.
My fear is based off of The political beliefs you seem to state.
This has nothing to do with what you are born as.
I could not possibly care less what you were born as. It has absolutely no bearing on how I see you.
>>9033>I don't see it as the far right doing that. I see it as the left doing that.
I don't really know how to begin to respond. You seem to be coming at this from a point of view where the far right either doesn't exist at all in the U.S. or has no role in the U.S. whatsoever, such that any discussions involving the far right don't seem to trigger any understanding.
In contrast, you seem to see non-conservatives as this gigantic mob of bad people, akin to a blob monster in a Hollywood film, to which there's shared moral responsibility and other such things floating all around.
Thus, a far right extremist shooting up a religious instinction is acting only in a personal capacity and no other larger group, let alone larger ideology, is involved.
However, an antifa member murdering a passerby is not only the personal responsibility of that tiny clique of anarchists but is the entire collective fault of all non-conservatives, as they are the amorphous "left" who are dragging the nation to hell.
I don't know really where to go here.>Certainly it was not conservatives saying that the sign it's OK to be white was racist. Or conservatives, for that matter, declaring the OK symbol to be racist.
Far right extremists as a matter of public, clearly invented trolling went through different online arguments about how to mess with the most people in the quickest among of time only to decide that shenanigans involving the "It's okay to be white" meme and the "Okay symbol" meme would work. They then did their trolling out in the wild, offline. And people called them out for being dicks.
I... very, very, very don't understand why this isn't solely the moral responsibility of those who did it. When 4chan trolls hijacked websites of those with epilepsy in order to trigger seizures, was that the fault of people with epilepsy? When the trolls decided to make up various death rumors about internet streamers in order to try to bully those streamers' fans into self-harm, was that Twitch's fault?
I can't even begin to at a basic level get your moral system in terms of even a like... entry level into what you believe, really.
>>9031>Donald Trump appears to me to have a coherent policy platform in the sense of promoting white Christian nationalism
Given that Trump's daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism and that she and her Jewish husband were some of Trump's closest advisors from the beginning to the end of his administration, I have doubts about claims of him supporting Christian nationalism, at least in any sense that would be detrimental to Jews.
Opposition to immigration (and I suppose it would be fair to say with an emphasis on nonwhite immigration) is probably the closest Trump came to white nationalism.>Which is why Trump even openly uses terms such as "nationalism" and "nationalist" positively.
I think of Trump's nationalism was economic in nature, like supporting "made in America" and "America First!" and opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), etc.
>>9040>Do you see what I'm getting at? The negativity comes about for different reasons. Yet it practically winds up being the same.
Yes. I wasn't trying to justify it normatively, but merely descriptively explain it. I was responding to:>At a basic psychological level, I cannot begin to see where the notion that a large chunk of millions of Americans want to get you because you're a conservative while they're black/gay/trans/whatever comes from. >Milo ... throughout the majority of his life stated that homosexuality was evil and wrong, publicly discussing his orientation in the sense that it was a badge of shame for him
Oh, I was unaware of that. (I didn't closely follow Milo; I just knew that he was gay and was popular among a lot of the Trump-supporting crowd.) I guess another openly gay far-right leader is Renaud Camus (although he is European, not American).
I see that you're now accusing me of doing to you what you've been doing to me, with you taking your assumptions of your own infallibility and righteousness as well as your inability to express charity to those with a non-conservative worldview (which, I'd like to point out once again, is the vast majority of people) and perceiving me as such. I'm not surprised. I do regret this, though.
Once again, I stress that I hope that at some point you express the willingness of looking at yourself a bit critically, seeing that maybe instead of everybody else being blind there might be an issue with yourself. Which is, of course, nothing really wrong because having human biases is something that everybody has. That's just how our brains process information, unfortunately.
I understand that you won't accept the apology. It's obviously your right to do so. That's life.
To go back to the original question of the thread: that of physical safety specifically and just the desire to live our lives as we see fit in general making secession a nice idea because then everybody has a fair shot in a localized community under localized rules... we appear to both find the intellectual idea reasonable, I think, and as such oddly agree on an important thing.
In practical terms, though, I find your fears of minorities and non-conservatives as part of that dastardly and nefarious mob that is "the left" to have essentially no connection to reality. Mitt Romney isn't going to be knocking at your window at 3:30am trying to take you to task for that pro-Trump meme you posted on Twitter. Reality simply doesn't work that way, according to your assumptions.
Obviously, I would find my own fears to be reasonable since... I'm me. No kidding. Everyone is their own best friend. However, I think that you can objectively say that anybody who's not far right (whether they're a libertarian, a centrist, a progressive, or whatever) being afraid of being hurt by, killed by, or otherwise disadvantaged by a far right militant has reasonable cause for their expectations. Anyone who is either of any minority group or is even perceived to be a minority additionally has grounds to be worried.
Paranoia is still paranoia even if you've objectively, factually been victimized in your past and credibly fear future victimization. We should use common sense. In the case of being armed, one should obviously be responsible (i.e. use correct trigger discipline, practice aiming diligently, house your weapon in a way that can't involve children accessing it, et cetera). And one shouldn't hide away forever in one's home, not being willing to engage with life. Proportion applies.
I believe the far right to be a very small minority which is shamed every time it pops up if that's what you mean.
They absolutely do exist, I just don't think they exist in large numbers as you seem to. >In contrast, you seem to see non-conservatives as this gigantic mob of bad people, akin to a blob monster in a Hollywood film, to which there's shared moral responsibility and other such things floating all around.
Never set that, this is a presumption on your part.
I am quite tired of trying to address them.>Thus, a far right extremist shooting up a religious instinction is acting only in a personal capacity and no other larger group, let alone larger ideology, is involved.
An ideology with a single believer can still Make that single believer do something in accordance to that ideology.
Again this is a position you presumed, that does not exist. I never said anything of the sort.>However, an antifa member murdering a passerby is not only the personal responsibility of that tiny clique of anarchists but is the entire collective fault of all non-conservatives, as they are the amorphous "left" who are dragging the nation to hell.
Never said that period again your putting stuff in my mouth.>Far right extremists as a matter of public, clearly invented trolling went through different online arguments about how to mess with the most people in the quickest among of time only to decide that shenanigans involving the "It's okay to be white" meme and the "Okay symbol" meme would work.
I am not so convinced it was the far right as you say. I talked to many people especially around the time when "it's okay to be white" was going around who would do things like put up flyers like that on campus, And they seemed libertarian types, not authoritarian racists as you seem to assume>And people called them out for being dicks.
People did a lot more than just call them dicks. I don't believe you are unaware of this, either.
They got called racist bigots for it. Others who didn't even know about the campaign got called racist bigots for it.
Acting like all that ever happened was some guys got called dicks is just plain dishonest.>I... very, very, very don't understand why this isn't solely the moral responsibility of those who did it.
If a black man intentionally walks into a KKK rally, is he morally responsible for the racist slurs thrown at him?
This is frankly the same "her skirt was too short" rhetoric you hear supposedly excusing rape.
No, 4chan does not bear moral responsibility for far left racism.
Just because they exploited their stupidity to demonstrate their lack of moral character, doesn't mean the people who decided to be racist shits are somehow innocent. >When 4chan trolls hijacked websites of those with epilepsy in order to trigger seizures, was that the fault of people with epilepsy?
Are you trying to argue that the people who said its OK to be white is racist are mentally ill?
That is a weird position to take.
Either way, both of those are far different from simply putting up a flyer.>I can't even begin to at a basic level get your moral system in terms of even a like... entry level into what you believe, really.
In this case it is very simple. If I wave around a wallet in front of you with loads of money in it, and you steal it from me, I may well have been doing something stupid, but you are the immoral person. It is the action of stealing that is wrong.
>>9049>I see that you're now accusing me of doing to you what you've been doing to me, with you taking your assumptions of your own infallibility and righteousness as well as your inability to express charity to those with a non-conservative worldview (which, I'd like to point out once again, is the vast majority of people) and perceiving me as such. I'm not surprised. I do regret this, though.
If that is really how you see it come on what is the point of having this conversation further?
You are just going to assume I am being malicious, and act as though I believe things I never want said I did.
How can protective dialogue take place when you think I'm this evil monster, evidently?
I never once claimed to be infallible. I had tried every time I spoke to you to specifically state that it is my perception. I wanted to explain to you that I don't agree with what you perceived, because I have a different view from you. I wanted to explain to you that I don't think your worldview is accurate, based on what I have seen.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of truth. I don't know for certain anything. Without evidence our to viewpoints have equal value. You are the one who didn't seem to understand that period I was trying to tell you that period.
Jamming words into other people's mouths is the mark of an asshole, and I'm to say, that is what you have repeatedly done
I'm aware of some conservatives critiquing Trump for being too humble, too moderate, too nice, too open, and just generally both not conservative enough as well as not enough of a fighter for conservativism, supposedly.
I don't really see how this is relevant?
Trump, for example, backed off on completely closing the border to non-white immigrants. He also backed off on keeping children permanently separated from their parents as punishment for their immigration (whether we're talking illegal or legal) allegedly contributing to the Hispanic infestation of America. Trump ramped up foreign intervention and saber-ratting in terms of Iran to the point of preparing for invasion, but he called that off at the last moment, much to the chagrin of conservatives. And it goes on.
I suppose a hardcore, uncompromising to the point of being insufferable leftist would similarly say about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, say, "There's all of these negative things that she's done. She's allowed social media platforms to let racists post their filth without the government going in to censor them. She's kept health care companies in business by refusing to nationalize it all. She's allowed nuts to own dangerous assault weapons without trying to ban their sale as well as confiscate ones in houses right now."
I may consider that leftist to have blinded themselves. I wouldn't see their criticism of this hypothetical President as being evidence to the contrary. Do you get me?
Look at the way you immediately frame this.
Rather than even entertain the idea that people could have disagreements with Trump on the right for things they think go to far, You immediately assume any distaste for trump is because hes not far right enough
Is it really any shock to you that you can't hold this conversation?
You act completely on charitably. You assume your enemies are the devil itself.
How could anyone on the right convince you of anything, if you immediately assume they are monsters who want you dead?
Yes, that's the case.
I also admit that I'm at a point where I've essentially lost patience, and continual discussion with one that views me as an evil monster and is barely holding back from all manner of invective doesn't appear to be beneficial to either them or me.
I understand that this is likely going to be seen as clear-cut lying, but I actually do appreciate talking to people who are totally alien from me because even if such communication isn't enjoyable, it remains useful: it's helpful to know what labels are put on something even if the labels don't begin to make sense (much as, say, knowing that a commercial product with a physical stamp 'Falsch' came from Germany and that said stamp has negative connotation helps even if I'm not able to learn that 'Falsch' means 'Failed'/'Failure').
I never said I view you as an evil monster.
You're a liar.
I said I was worried about the dehumanizing rhetoric that comes from your thinking, in how you perceive Republicans, but never that you personally were immoral for your beliefs.
I think you are a jerk for jamming words into the mouths of others, but that doesn't make you a monster
Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster as such through my blindness and malicious actions. Otherwise refusing to engage and not showing the emotional capability to hold such conservatives, but you accuse me of this. And so on.
I'm not exactly surprised at this, given our ethical values appear to be black versus white opposed, but I guess that gets back to the core point.
Why should you have to live in the same place as me, really, if you cannot begin to process my views on reality itself let alone right versus wrong? And if, of course, this goes the opposite direction. Why should I have to live in the same place as you if I'm an inherent evil monster, as such? Secession is a nice solution.
I never once claimed you were evil monster. That is a lie. You are a liar, sir.
Cite the post, if you would claim me false.
I do not believe you can because it does not exist
I can at least agree with you that I would not want to live near somebody who would jam words into my mouth and then openly lie about me like that there, though. I am in agreement with you there
I view you with disdain because you have lied about me.
That has nothing to do with your political persuasion.
I would dislike somebody who would light about me regardless of whether there left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, or otherwise.
I never claimed you were a monster. That is a lie
To be honest, I think that your viewing of this as a Blue Tribe versus Grey Tribe versus Red Tribe issue doesn't help.
There's no inherent reason why everybody in the Blue Tribe and everybody in the Grey Tribe can't exist in the same society under the same general legal framework, such as that of a representative democracy embodying the rule of law where a Constitutionally limited small government reins over a populace protected from violence and generally free. A significant chunk of the Red Tribe, the percentage I cannot say, is in the same position. Of course, there will be division. Hatred. Conflict to the point of despair. But not total civilizational breakdown.
This cannot be said of those within the Red Tribe who don't accept the essential humanity of those outside of their tribe as well as those inside the tribe who aren't doing things in the supposedly right way. These nationalist don't believe in actually living in a democracy at a fundamental level and wish to see a homogenous society where certain people live without specific other people getting in the way.
Why not let them do that? Have a nationalist co-America. Have a regular co-America for everybody else. And should there need to be more cleavages, such as an Antifa co-America for the minute but loud (and highly violent) anarchists who can't stand anything other than a cleansed, pure society... so be it.
We have to live together. If we can't go to the same workplaces, libraries, movie theaters, public parks, and so on without one particular group wanting to impose themselves on everybody else, then we can change things so that we live together... in the legal sense. Without having to see each other in person and such live in fear.
File: 1619121061872.jpg (29.29 KB, 501x538, 501:538, k0F2Nj9WMGln1QTQP4drO7P623….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Yes, it is a difficult problem. I'm afraid I don't know of any especially good ways of trying to solve it.>>9046
I think the point is that it was mainly the left who were bigoted against frog-posters, accusing anyone who posts Pepe images of being a far-right extremist and declaring that Pepe itself was a 'hate symbol'. Whereas conservatives didn't discriminate against people for posting innocuous rare Pepes.
I'm not saying that discriminating against frog-posters is equal in degree to discriminating on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, or other immutable or nearly immutable characteristics. But still, it strikes me as something that shouldn't be done. Unless the particular Pepe image is being used in a far-right manner, it doesn't make sense to accuse the poster of being far-right.
I'm afraid that I can't accept that premise.
You can hold a belief such as "I'm afraid of non-conservatives attacking me because that horrid mob of wretched creatures can't accept me being a conservative, thus I don't only want to arm myself but want secession" if you want, and it's certainly your right to do so.
Believing that means both inherently in logical terms and practically in realistic terms that you're going to be inherently afraid of people such as myself not just because of our category status but also because of our political traits as non-conservatives.
As long as American conservativism is structured in a certain way so that certain groups either aren't welcome at all or are very, very barely tolerated in the movement, this being in contrast to the broader society where nobody cares about your category status much, and like... as long as we understand that nobody is born a conservative, much as how nobody is born a New York Yankees fan or a brony or a furry or a Whovian or a metalhead or whatever, then being a non-conservative is literally the default... can you really not see what happens in reality with said belief gets applied?
>>9062>You can hold a belief such as "I'm afraid of non-conservatives attacking me because that horrid mob of wretched creatures can't accept me being a conservative, thus I don't only want to arm myself but want secession" if you want, and it's certainly your right to do so.
Much as I never called you a monster, I never said that.
This is just you lying again. >Believing that means both inherently in logical terms and practically in realistic terms that you're going to be inherently afraid of people such as myself not just because of our category status but also because of our political traits as non-conservatives.
Literally just explained how your category didn't matter to me in the slightest.
But apparently you're somehow "trying to understand"... as you ignore what I say, in favour of the made up things you think up. >As long as American conservativism is structured in a certain way so that certain groups either aren't welcome at all or are very, very barely tolerated in the movement,
This isn't a thing.
There are conservative jews. There are conservative gays. There are conservative blacks. >this being in contrast to the broader society where nobody cares about your category status much,
Literally how I and millions of conservative types think.
I explained this.
You ignored it.
Again, somehow you claim to be trying to understand as you ignore what I say, and make up things never mentioned. >as long as we understand that nobody is born a conservative, much as how nobody is born a New York Yankees fan or a brony or a furry or a Whovian or a metalhead or whatever, then being a non-conservative is literally the default
In the sense that political affiliation is something you grow in to, though I think it similar to religion in many ways.
Likewise, being non-democrat, non-liberal, or anything else is the default. >can you really not see what happens in reality with said belief gets applied?
I don't believe your interpretation of things.
There are black conservatives.
There are conservative from loads of different walks.
Identitarianism seems to me to predominately come from the left.
>>9058>I understand that it's inevitable that not being a conservative will likely mean the wholly alien conservative way of thinking
Hmm, this brings to mind some research I've seen:
Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian Nosek.
"Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Abstract: How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory , the authors developed several ways to measure people’s use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), “sacredness” reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American “culture war.”
The problem with saying "Trump is an economic nationalist, not a normal nationalist" is that "economic nationalist" is a term with rather clearly understood implications.
Economic nationalists wish to boost exports. They wish to restrict imports. They wish to restrain all forms of illegal immigration. They wish to moderate legal immigration such that only highly valued individuals of peculiar worth come in. They wish to set up tax and subsidy systems in such a way that regular workers do better and that technological innovation improves. They actively promote their country's own interests in terms of foreign engagements and oppose efforts at cozying up to competitors that oppose national values.
To say that Trump isn't that... is sort of like saying that a fax machine isn't a grilled cheese sandwich.
An economic nationalist setting immigration policy would consider a brain surgeon of brown-skinned Mexican heritage to be, likely, a valuable addition to American economic success in terms of competition. An uneducated drug addict who's currently homeless of white-skinned Norwegian heritage would likely be seen as a burden on the already screwed up U.S. health care and welfare systems, so while empathy would be expressed there would be no open doors. The Trumpian policy both in terms of rhetoric and specific actions, with the Hispanic infestation / invasion of the U.S. causing the corruption of current American cultural values into a guttural mix of traditions such that the only way to solve things is to close off people from certain nations while welcoming those from others, fits very poorly with economic nationalism. It fits normal nationalism to a 'T'.
As for Trump's daughter marrying somebody Jewish, I'd like to point out that granting individual exceptions to prejudice based on personal friendships plus sexual attraction is rather... universal? Even Adolf Hitler himself allowed the Jewish doctor who treated his family as a young child to escape his regime's policies. Sexual assault of slaves and impregnation of slave women was so common in early America that this become normalized as a legal matter, these "children of the plantation" walking about openly without scandal in some cases.
This isn't to say that Trump is morally at the level of a Nazi or slaveholder. I'd say that Trump is, at a core level, a salesman who's a narcissist. If some mass number of Americans suddenly having hang ups about, say, gophers, then Trump would be out there hawking the OFFICIAL TRUMP BRAND GOPHER GENOCIDER 9000 to entrap their tiny legs when they hop across every lawn in America. From my point of view, white Christian nationalism has off and on been the latest release.
Your essential point is reasonable.
I merely wanted to add to it.
To try to put things into succinct terms: a self-described conservative can feel assumptions about other people that come from their category status as whatever without inherent prejudice being a part, this happening because human moral reason is messy for everybody no matter the politics.
As you pointed out as well, this problem appears to have no logical solution.
You appear to be at a level of absolute disconnection from reality and standard morality as expressed by non-conservatives such as myself to where I don't know at all how to proceed.
Far right extremists as people and far right extremism as a movement is not a barely existing fringe group with no power. This is false. White Christian nationalism as an ideology is surging, it's expressed by millions to the point of being the doctrine of mass swaths of people, and those who cross the line into outright far right street activism and even violence represent a core threat to American democracy in general as well as to regular Americans walking those streets. I include myself here.
Modern American conservatism is an identarian movement in many circumstances, with identarians being a well-accepted base of the group. Not entirely. But to a large extent. Identarians are deliberately welcomed. Being of a particular minority status, such as having been born transgender, makes you actively less welcome in conservatives spaces to the point of active hostility. This is natural given that conservativism as a belief system as well as in practical application in terms of policy promotes prejudice against transgender people among others, hence why conservatives oppose us being able to serve in the military as well as being able to hold non-military government positions.
Mitt Romney is barely tolerated as a conservative. Tucker Carlson is a conservative superstar to where he may be the next Presidential nominee from the GOP. I certainly accept the claim that Romney conservatives (who don't judge based on category and don't inherently hate non-conservatives) exist. That they represent all or nearly all conservatives is a lie. Carlson conservatives make up a large chunk of the movement, perhaps the majority.
At a fundamental level, a house divided against itself cannot stand. I would not join a local gym if they stated that uniformed neo-Nazis were allowed to come in and work out, say. I would not shop at a local store if they stated that uniformed Klansman were allowed to browse for items inside, say. And I likewise will not even begin to consider becoming a conservatives or a Republican again so long as they consider identitarians to be an essential part of the team.
If they're in, I'm not. The end. Period.
In terms of personal lives, somebody's odds of being harmed as a result of being white, being Christian, or being conservative are so close to rare as to be practically non-existent. I'm aware of only two instances of murder taking place under these circumstances throughout the entirety of the past twenty years at minimum, perhaps the last many decades. In direct contrast to this, Jews for being Jewish, progressives for being progressive, gays for being gay, have been murdered in incident after incident. Conservatives may or may not express sympathy in these cases and may or may not propose solutions, it depends on whether or not one is a special non-identarian conservative or a regular conservative sympathetic to them.
I do not consider basic human decency to be hard, and thus these responses speak volumes to me. They're in. Thus, I'm in.
I'll let you get the last word in, but it's likely that your next comment will be something that will probably worth leaving as-is without me trying to spike it or such (please don't misinterpret this as "I hate you therefore I don't care what you say, ending the conversation" when I'm going "please put it all in summary terms, that's probably right").
>>9067>You appear to be at a level of absolute disconnection from reality and standard morality as expressed by non-conservatives such as myself to where I don't know at all how to proceed.
I would say the same to you.
I've not ever met someone who thinks lying is perfectly fine and acceptable behavior.
You still refuse to prove your claim.
I never said you were a monster. That was a lie.
When I told you this, you've chosen to ignore it, it seems.
I would say likewise I view cowardice as morally repugnant, so given you find that and dishonestly evidently acceptable, I agree completely.
We have radically different views on morality.
I would never do what you chose to here. >I do not consider basic human decency to be hard,
This is a surprise to me, as your conduct indicates otherwise.
I would consider honesty a basic human decency
Do you seriously have no problem with lying?
You said I said something I did not.
Is that acceptable behavior to you?
Would it be reasonable to you for me to go on this thread, claiming you've been advocating for pedophilia, despite knowing full well that's not true and refusing to prove it?
Or is it purely my status as your enemy that makes me undeserving of such consideration?
I never called you a sub human, either, by the way.
That's you being a dishonest asshole, again.
Can you make a point to the actual discussion topic, please?
Your hatred and psychological projection. It's been noted. I understand that I was your enemy from the beginning. That doesn't change the above question.
Will you lie about me again, as you did unapologetically earlier, if I do?
And in case you're going to pretend like you didn't, here's the link. >>9056>"Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster "
And while I'm at it, here's where you claimed I had said you were sub human as well, despite that being a lie as well. >>9070>"Can you respond to the actual intellectual points instead of going on as you have been from the beginning about how I'm such a horrid subhuman "
How can I converse with someone who will openly and objectively as simple fact of reality lie about me?
Because that is objectively what has occurred.
>>9072>Would it be reasonable to you for me to go on this thread, claiming you've been advocating for pedophilia, despite knowing full well that's not true and refusing to prove it?
Yes. It would be perfectly reasonable for me to expect for you to do that. As a political conservative engaged in online commentary, I've every logical reason to expect you to hate me from the outset as well as make such statements about me, and accusations of pedophilia are a standard thing that conservatives do generally speaking in discussions with non-conservatives, such as how discussions of current President Joe Biden frequently involve conservatives accusing him of being a pedophile. As well, conservatives generally describe all LGBT people as either being sympathic to pedophiles and of being pedophiles, this being mangnified specifically when it comes to transgender people.
I'd also view it as reasonable for you to refuse to talk to me from the outset at all, not even posting, either for me self-identifying as a former Christian, as a former conservatives, as a former conservatives, or as a transgender person. It would of course be your right to do so. I would consider it greatly regrettable. Yet I'd understand that conservatives just do that.
This is completely a tangent, however. I understand if you don't engage with it. I wouldn't, were I you (who cares what I expect given how other random online conservatives act).>>9078>>9080
I realize that you don't believe at all when I say this, but I actually want to see you respond to the main point of the thread, and I believe I'd be fine with giving you the last word on that.
To be specific, for you to chew on: >>9067
We appear to be in a Monty Python style 'Argument Clinic' sort of situation in which you constantly reiterate how much you hate me as well as engage in something like "No, it isn't!", and I'd rather not just scream "No, it is!" and "I don't hate you. You hate me." into the void.
File: 1619127410981.jpg (317.1 KB, 1280x670, 128:67, 1476046876927.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9065>Even Adolf Hitler himself allowed the Jewish doctor who treated his family as a young child to escape his regime's policies.
OK, but Hitler didn't put any Jews into top policy-making positions. Trump clearly had an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim policies, but I don't think he had anything similar in regard to Jews. As an atheist, I never felt threatened (in regard to religious freedom) by Trump; it's not like he was going to force me to go to Church or anything remotely like Christian nationalism.>They wish to moderate legal immigration such that only highly valued individuals of peculiar worth come in.
Well, wasn't that Trump's main point about immigration from Mexico? He was always complaining about how most immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) were a net harm to America.>An economic nationalist setting immigration policy would consider a brain surgeon of brown-skinned Mexican heritage to be, likely, a valuable addition to American economic success in terms of competition.
If most of the immigrants from Mexico were people like brain surgeons, I'm sure Trump wouldn't have been so opposed to immigration from Mexico.>I'd say that Trump is, at a core level, a salesman who's a narcissist.
>>9082>Yes. It would be perfectly reasonable for me to expect for you to do that.
I didn't ask if it would be reasonable to expect, I asked if it would be reasonable to DO.
I do not think tribalism enough cause to engage in such dishonesty, and am concerned that you seem to.
Perhaps this is the source of our differing moral philosophies.
As I see it, actions are immoral. Regardless of who it is to, or why.
Lying about someone seems to me to be inherently immoral, as would stealing be, or murder.
Who it's to our what the end goal is doesn't matter to me. >>9083>who cares what I expect given how other random online conservatives act).
That attitude of immediate hostility seems to be what got you in this mess
Especially given how you don't even seem to be able to recognise what you did. I gave you the specific close and yet you are still seemingly fine with it.
You don't have a problem at all with your own actions?
You really believe it acceptable to state these kinds of things, refuse to back them up, And that the people you've done it to should simply roll over and continue as though it never occurred?
How? Given your conduct, I can't trust you will deal with what I say honestly.
I have no reason not to think you'll misrepresent me again.
File: 1619128388194.jpg (138.85 KB, 824x691, 824:691, 1458784821285.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Beautiful Hare makes a legitimate point that that you said that he was "claiming that [you][ are] an evil monster" when he made no such claim. Now, I think you were speaking metaphorically or something like that, and he interpreted you literally. But now that he brought it up, it's really on you to clear up this mess and clarify what you actually meant.
This framing doesn't even begin to make sense to me.
Far right extremists deliberately adopted Pepe, a symbol essentially devoid of all politics let alone extremist ones, as a mascot both because they enjoyed the meme for its own sake (they likely have psychologies, likely, that make them more online obsessive than other political groups in the first place) and also because they intentionally desired to troll everybody else by using a positive symbol in a gross way. Thus making observers cringe. And when there's cringe, there's lulz. Mission accomplished? I guess (apologies for the clumsy wording).
The far right deliberately wanted to create a death spiral in which Pepe got used in normal contexts only to be associated with cringe politics... which made a lot of commentators made... which made Pepe get posted more for spite, as well as spread more by those on the far right who genuinely did see him as their icon... and then so on. A flywheel effect. They succeeded completely.
I would understand if all this made conservatives think of the far right worse. Instead, it appears to have made them hate non-conservatives more. It's somehow the non-conservatives' fault that they don't like seeing a symbol co-opted by dicks spread everywhere. Calling out the far right and telling them to leave Pepe alone is yet another sign of how awful those non-conservatives have become.
If a group of volunteer firefighters become rather tired at arsonists constantly burning down buildings in the neighborhood, the weapon of choice being some large bottle of whatever chemicals, and then the local government tried to stop anybody from using those bottles... in those circumstances, well, I'd be certainly pissed off if I was an engineer or something and one of the vast majority of regular peeps who needed the supplies for normal. My anger would be first and foremost centered on the arsonists. To a far, far lesser extent I'd be angry at the local government for what I'd see as an overreaction that wasn't reasonable. I'd have zero negative feelings for the firefighters.
In this situation, conservatives appear to not only blame the firefighters but go out of their way to state that this just proves how awful those dastardly douche-bags are? I guess. Really can't even begin to get into conservatives' heads on this one.
Are there instances of somebody posting Pepe and either being physically attacked or otherwise being harmed in a rather clear sense, like being kicked out of a university or something, by concerned moralists? I sincerely don't know. If yes, I'd appreciate context.
I understand that you can't help this psychological projection and so you believe that, based on your own immediate hostility to me and general behavior thus far, I'm the worst of the worst and how dare I be here, talking to you.
Again, your hatred has been noted. It's long been noted. I'm not interested in your viewpoints of me as an inherently inferior person. I'm interested in your opinions on the thread's topic.
>>9090> I'm not interested in your viewpoints of me as an inherently inferior person.
He never said that you were inherently
an inferior person. He is saying that (1) you are misrepresenting what he said and (2) your misrepresentation is really pissing him off. It has nothing to do with any of your innate characteristics or your political positions and everything to do with you misrepresenting what he said.
Now, I don't think you are intentionally misrepresenting him. I think this is all one big failure to communicate. But really I can only re-iterate what I said in >>9087 >>9088
>>9089>It's somehow the non-conservatives' fault that they don't like seeing a symbol co-opted by dicks spread everywhere
Well, that's the thing.
The right doesn't really buy into the "coopted" view on symbolism and such, generally. Or at least, I've never heard it mentioned, outside of saying "the left thinks this means X".
To them, pepe is just a frog meme, nobody owns a meme, and so the idea that a meme can be "co-opted" doesn't bear out.
You can't co-opt a crayon, or paint color, right?
That's how they see pepe. Or at least, that's how I've seen it looked at, as well as how I do myself.
Incidentally, the pepe thing was intentional, in that some particularly silly folk wanted to "take back" pepe from what was as I recall just called the "normies" rather than left at that time, by creating offensive pepe versions until it was assumed that's what it was.
They also didn't really understand memes, but I guess it worked for them, so, maybe they figured out the systems secrets. >>9090
That isn't what I believe nor is it what I said.
I've given you the specific quotes and where they were.
If I had been told I did something as you did, and was shown to hear done it, I would apologize, as those actions are wrong.
That is the mature thing to do. >I'm interested in your opinions on the thread's topic.
Why not just fabricate some, then, as you've already done?
Decide I said something else I've never said.
What's the practical distinction?
Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
File: 1619129724758.png (377.26 KB, 925x676, 925:676, 1611449928647.png) ImgOps Google
>>9089> My anger would be first and foremost centered on the arsonists.
I differ: my anger would be directed at the government. They are the party who directed injured me. >I'd have zero negative feelings for the firefighters.
Same here, unless the firefighters were lobbying the government to ban my chemicals.
And in fact that scenario is actually playing in the real world if you substitute "arson" with "mass murder" and "chemicals" with "AR15-style firearms". My anger over the proposed so-called "assault-weapon bans" is directed mainly at those who propose such bans, not at the mass murderers. The anti-gun politicians would be directly
responsible for the gun bans, whereas the mass murderers would only be indirectly
In regards to Pepe specfically, there is plenty of Pepe to go around for everyone. If the far-right types love him and like posting him, I have no problem with them. It doesn't directly affect my ability to post Pepe. Instead, it's the leftists who condemn Pepe as a far-right """hate symbol""" and warn me to not post Pepe anymore. (And yes, a leftist on this site has told me to stop posting Pepe because he is supposedly a """hate symbol"" or some such nonsense.)
To be frank, it appears that because you voted for Trump and have a political self-identity that's different than the groups (moderates, center-left types, center-right types, liberals, progressives, and libertarians) hated by and opposed by Trump, you've created a certain mental image of the man and his Presidency different than that seen by a lot of other people (perhaps most people, given that Trump is one of the most historically unpopular Presidents in history and just was voted out by a large margin). I wouldn't use the rose colored glasses cliché, but something similar seems to be going on in terms of confirmation bias. Can't lie.
Of course, this isn't, like, bad in any moral sense or even really that big of a deal inherently (saying to a human being 'don't show cognitive bias is like saying 'don't have bad breath' or 'don't forget your keys again'). I'm bringing it up because this means you and I are probably going to be in a position where we might agree in exact terms about what platform concepts Trump pushed and why, but we will be unable to ethically interpret them the same. My glass is half-empty (understandably, given that Trump essentially became famous for roasting McCain, Romney, and the same Republicans that I used to admire, so he came into office with me being biased the opposite way).
In terms of religious nationalism, I've spent the past four years concerned over multiple issues. Yes, I'd say, to the point of fear. It's not just due to transphobia, largely though not entirely (or even necessarily mostly) due to religious dogma, being a core element of Trump administration actions from discrimination in the military to discrimination in schooling to discrimination in housing to discrimination in government jobs and more. And that's tied to anti-LGBT work generally. It's also a bombardment of rhetoric from politician after politician in the administration, particularly Mike Pence as Vice President and what's-his-face as Attorney General, claiming that America's Christian heritage is in danger due to equality and tolerance plus changing demographics, this having to be opposed at all costs. The anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim policies have been, as you've acknowledged, blatant. Unfair positive treatment of Christians to the detriment of everybody else took place in multiple areas, I believe, from the aforementioned mandatory Christian only prayers before public events to the deliberate pattern of working to steer taxpayer support to sectarian institutions to birth control policies getting set up with overwhelming advice from Christian activists without comparable input from others... and it seems to go on.
In racial terms, it all appears blatant to me as well. Somebody who wants a better economic system with more high skilled immigrants broadly wouldn't attempt to warp the rules such that ethic national heritage appears to drive whether or not you get in. That somebody wouldn't state that certain ethnic groups are a problem compared to other ethnic groups because they're inherently more likely to be dangerous criminals. They additionally wouldn't be the leader of a political movement in which the general rhetoric is to describe immigration from certain groups as an infestation and an invasion.
>>9097>you've created a certain mental image of the man and his Presidency different than that seen by a lot of other people>I wouldn't use the rose colored glasses cliché, but something similar seems to be going on in terms of confirmation bias.
Yes, I think I agree. Trump is something like a Rorschach test. Different people project onto him different images.>Unfair positive treatment of Christians to the detriment of everybody else took place in multiple areas
Given that a large majority of the country is Christian, I think that is to be expected to some degree. I try not to let it bother me as long as it's not too extreme.>Somebody who wants a better economic system with more high skilled immigrants broadly wouldn't ...
Trump was an incompetent buffoon. He often employed ineffective means to achieve his desired outcomes.
I mean, I'm repeatedly being called an "asshole" explicitly, repeatedly being told that I'm a liar, repeatedly told that I'm blinded, repeatedly being told that I'm stupid, repeatedly being told that I'm a potential threat to somebody's physical safety as well as that of their family's safety, repeatedly being told that I'm unable to be moral, repeatedly being told that I'm unfairly hostile, and God knows what else.
All of this from the beginning, the hatred coming with quite the buttload of psychological projection.
All of this is exactly what I expected from the beginning, before I created the very thread, and admittedly what I walked right into because I knew better (joke's on me, right), because conservatives are gonna conservative.
I committed the crime of not agreeing with the anointed perfect people on Earth, and thus it's my fault.
However, all that aside, you asked a specific question (although in a roundabout way, but whatever), and deserve a specific answer: yes, the conservative poster believes me to be "evil" and has repeatedly put that view forward. while not in exact terms using the exact word "evil" and not precisely saying in those very specific terms "you are evil".
I find this baffling to the point that if I were an outsider observer it would be genuinely funny that somehow not using the exact word "evil" makes everything entirely different, as if I were to be run over by a car as a pedestrian and say "I got whomped" only to be told something like "No, actually, Whomp is a Mario Bros. character, and to be honest the fact that you'd lie like about the situation that just happened means that I think you were actually justified in being run over."
Now... can we please return the threads' topic?
>>9086>I didn't ask if it would be reasonable to expect, I asked if it would be reasonable to DO.
I would consider it to be both reasonable to expect conservatives to do and additionally reasonable for them to do.
You bring up pedophilia as an example, and it's an excellent point. Conservatives frequently accuse President Joe Biden of being a pedophile, and for the most part they've received no negative repercussions whatsoever for doing so. Similarly, conservatives frequently state that LGBT rights in general is a cover for pedophilia as well as that transgender rights activism is a plot to sexualize children. This hasn't particularly resulted in effective pushback.
The mouse asked for a cookie and got it. Time for a glass of milk? Why would I expect otherwise?
File: 1619131465793.png (114.41 KB, 346x414, 173:207, flower_sona_repremand.png) ImgOps Google
tldr; Your idea has popped into my head, but I don't know.>>8964>It's often been proposed that some kind of a community-based cleavage should take place
I suspect this happens to some degree. There are red and blue areas in America generally and some migrations due to the divide. You want different governments at a federal level, though.
And I'm not sure how many people are solidly on one side or the other politically. A lot of vocal people are, but that's an obvious bias.>What are your thoughts?
Well, first that there seems a tendency for societies to divide into two major warring political groups, then the groups have to stabilize to divide power. Eg. if conservatives need LGBT support to be about equal to liberals in political power -- maybe gay marriage is OK all of a sudden. Things are pretty fluid, and if you divided conservatives and liberals into two states, you will have the conservative-conservatives and liberal-conservatives forming two parties, and so forth. So if the goal is unity, it might not work great.
I'm reminded of George Lankoff's Moral Politics, saying there are some fairly deep moral frames dividing the groups -- liberals: systemic thinking, nurturing parent model; conservatives: individualized ethics, strict parent model.
But your ideas has occurred to me, too. You meet Christians that want a fundamentalist theocracy with strict social norms and forbidden kinds of science, and part wants to say, I mean, they called that the Dark Ages, but maybe you should be able to go do that. Like saying to the cat, "If you really want to eat plastic, here you go, yum yum." I have to be careful here to not denigrate religion itself, of course. Property framed religion will be perfectly healthy (but implicit: if a proper frame is required, unframed religion need not be healthy). Perhaps the same with nationalism.
>>9099>yes, the conservative poster believes me to be "evil" and has repeatedly put that view forward. while not in exact terms using the exact word "evil" and not precisely saying in those very specific terms "you are evil".
I'm pretty sure that making inferences like that is how you pissed off Beautiful Hare. You make inferences about his positions and then present those inferences as if they were his actual position, when he disagrees with the inferences that you made.>as if I were to be run over by a car as a pedestrian and say "I got whomped" only to be told something like "No, actually, Whomp is a Mario Bros. character, and to be honest the fact that you'd lie like about the situation ..."
Yeah, I think it boils down to miscommunication between you and Beautiful Hare, like you two are using the same words to mean different things.>Now... can we please return the threads' topic?
I doubt Beautiful Hare is willing to get back to the topic until his issue with you misrepresenting his position is resolved.
I have given you the specific breakdown for Why exactly I am calling you a liar.
You have also had ample opportunity to defend your actions. You chose not to. You were asked to cite where I said you were a monster. You refused.
This was most certainly not from the beginning. That much is abundantly obvious. I don't recall calling you stupid either.>I committed the crime of not agreeing with the anointed perfect people on Earth, and thus it's my fault.
You can disagree with people without having to lie about them.
Nobody forced you to make things up.>while not in exact terms using the exact word
So another words I never did, and your making stuff up. Your admitting you made it up.
You had a lousy assumption about me, a level of bigotry if you will, and you use that to Justify your mistreatment of me.
You literally know nothing about me come up but you assume because I am not left wing mama I hate you by default.
Get the fuck off your high horse already. I don't hate you just because you disagree with me. I am starting to heavily dislike you because you seem to love acting like an asshole and have no problem behaving reprehensibly.
Again come up I would never do what you have done to me. That would be disgusting of me. Anybody who does that is a scumbag. It doesn't matter if they are left wing or right wing, that kind of stuff is morally repugnant. Nobody should do in period I certainly would never do what you do here.
I understand that your viewpoint as a conservative makes you sympathetic to the far right's claimed take on things, even if you're not yourself far right (I take you on your word that this is true), but as a non-conservatives I can only speak to what everybody else has been living through.
Most regular people understand that meaning and symbolism changes over time given altering contexts. Thus, a swastika can go from a Buddhist symbol of good luck (even, I think I've seen reported, a positive totem of happiness used by Semitic peoples of the Mideast, including those that would later become Jews) to an icon of not just racial supremacy by bloodlust via political extremism. Similarly, the rainbow can go start off as a part of the physical nature of light when exposed to certain stimuli that, while pretty, has no social implications whatsoever and become a symbol of homosexuality in terms of both self-expression and social experience, only to then evolve even more to be something that reflects a spectrum of identities from bisexuality to homosexuality and beyond. To be narrowly political, the color blue used to just be, well, blue. Given that the U.S. flag is made of vibrant blues, reds, and yellows, politicians of all stripes used to prominently use blue in their media. Then, in the George W. Bush era, a set of arbitrary media reporting decisions caused the notion of 'blue states' / 'red states' to spread like wildfire. Now, blue means not just 'Democrat' but 'progressive' in a lot of iconography.
Pepe the Frog was an entirely non-political symbol. The far right attempted to turn him into something that can be, under certain conditions, meant to spread unhappiness and despair. A great regret, surely, for the chill creature who just wants to feel good, man. The far right has partially succeeded, in the sense that they've trolled quite a buttload of people and feel quite happy with themselves, and everybody who's neither a conservatives nor far right is fighting back.
Conservatives state that they're not far right themselves, but I guess this is an example (although a silly one) of how they operate either deliberately or subconsciously. Because non-conservative must be opposed at all costs, the far right is a valued and appreciated part of the team, and welcomed in the conservative movement as well as the Republican Party, because they get things done.
And, as I'd said before, it wouldn't matter that much if I agreed with conservatives on like 60% of the issues or more (to be honest, personally, I don't where I'd sit in percentage terms, but it would be quite far from 0%). If they're in, I'm out. If they're welcome, I'm not.
File: 1619132232190.webm (1.34 MB, biden.webm) ImgOps Google
>>9100>Conservatives frequently accuse President Joe Biden of being a pedophile
There are multiple videos of Biden inappropriately touching little girls. I don't think that Biden is a pedophile, but it's not like people are making up the claim out of whole cloth.
>>9100>I would consider it to be both reasonable to expect conservatives to do and additionally reasonable for them to do.
In that case you have messed up moral code, and exceptionally basic aspects of human decency we disagree on.
I believe that honesty is important. I especially believe that lying about others is morally repugnant to the highest order.>You bring up pedophilia as an example, and it's an excellent point. Conservatives frequently accuse President Joe Biden of being a pedophile, and for the most part they've received no negative repercussions whatsoever for doing so.
I have not seen what you are referring to, and quite honestly giving your conduct thus far I don't think I can trust you at face value on the subject without evidence. I don't know of anyone knowingly lying about Biden this way.
If what you say is actually true, as you say it, I would say that is morally reprehensible of them.
I would still want evidence for it, as your conduct toward me suggests you are more than willing to assume the worst where it is not present.
Anybody who willingly lies about another person is a shitty person.
The whole point of a lie is that it is known its not true.
If he can show me an example where somebody was well aware by and was not a paedophile when they said it, Or otherwise has stated they don't actually think biting is a paedophile, I am willing to accept that as somebody who lacks moral character.
But, like you point out, if they have reasons for it, they have reasons for their opinion.
It's a little different from saying somebody said something that the objectively never did.
I mean... I was expecting that this thread would be a mess from the get go because conservatives gonna conservative, and I do regret that that's happened (as well as that I'm sure with absolute certainty I've both been misrepresented myself and misrepresented others, it happens), but I guess that I can't really get hung up over it because anybody who disagrees with God's anointed people will get that.
I do appreciate a lot of this thread, though, as there's actually been quite a lot of productive discussion.
>>9104>I understand that your viewpoint as a conservative makes you sympathetic to the far right's claimed take on things, even if you're not yourself far right
Literally nothing I said there had anything to do with sympathy for the far right, man.
You ask me to actually engage the topic, then you do this shit again anyway when I give it a go.
How am I supposed to talk to you when you keep making up things in your own head?
That attitude of "conservatives gonna conservative" is exactly why you're having this issue.
You refuse to treat me with any level of basic human decency, instead assuming my positions and lying about me, because I've got the horrible crime of leaning to the right.
It has nothing to do with your disagreement, dude.
I've disagreed with many left wing people.
I've been friends with many left wing people
Most people on left aren't assholes.
Most of them think lying about people is wrong.
I'd even say most of them don't think being a conservative makes you a bad person.
Stop blaming your own personal failure of character on your politics.
It's cowardly, and is spitting in the face of good left wing friends of mine.
You didn't even address a single thing he brought up to you, dude.
Like, come on.
I'm not sure how to bridge this moral gap. If a uniformed neo-Nazi takes something I like and intentionally tries to destroy its public image, such as what if next for some reason squirrels are suddenly adopted as a mascot by the far right and memes spread of them to the point that seeing somebody with a squirrel avatar provokes a "Here we go again", then I would be mad. I'd view it from the underlying lens that the far right is a danger to not just myself, both in physical safety terms and civil rights terms, but to democracy itself. If a Mitt Romney type center-right activist decides that 1/3 of squirrels on Twitter being dicey means that absolutely everybody into the fuzzy things should change their lives completely and admit cultural defeat... I'd consider that person to be an idiot, but I wouldn't consider them to be morally wrong and unsympathetic in what they're doing, let alone view their approach as inherently unreasonable.
To turn things around to the core of the thread, I don't actually believe that secession is necessarily a great idea nor that it has to happen, but it sounds possibly right because of the rational fear that most people have for far right extremists. What if the far right extremists just went someplace else? At the same time, I guess a lot of conservatives want to have their own someplace else. I would understand if it was for any number of sympathetic emotional reasons from getting back to nature to avoiding social pressures from constant political debates to whatever else.
I can't really understand being afraid of Mitt Romney. Or, to put in conservative language terms, redefining things so that everybody who's not conservative is in the same mob, and thus everybody who's not conservative is a threat because they might be like one of those anfita militants.
To reaffirm my issue here, because I cannot for the life of me understand why my being right wing makes this shit acceptable, my issue is with the post >>9056>"Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster "
And >>9070>"Can you respond to the actual intellectual points instead of going on as you have been from the beginning about how I'm such a horrid subhuman "
I never called you a monster, or otherwise claimed you were, and I certainly never said you were sub human.
Despite me saying over and over again that this is the case, and saying over and over again that i don't believe this, it seems because I'm on the right, it doesn't matter.
Just fuck me. I don't deserve any decency, I guess, I'm on the wrong side of the political spectrum.
This level of toxicity is exactly why we're having problems.
You don't even seem to be willing to entertain the idea you've done something wrong, because, hey, he's a republican, he clearly deserves anything that happened to him.
How can there ever be any productive dualogue when you think like that?
>>9098>Given that a large majority of the country is Christian, I think that is to be expected to some degree. I try not to let it bother me as long as it's not too extreme.
I would say this: it used to be considered that slavery couldn't be changed because it was just so common and appeared inevitable because of the statistical dynamics of the population. That changed. Same story for Jim Crow laws. Same story for same sex marriage. Same story for ending sexist laws. And it goes on.
Building a better world requires being able to look at things from an outsider perspective and asking why certain acts of suffering have to happen in the first place. Why not try for idealism?>Trump was an incompetent buffoon. He often employed ineffective means to achieve his desired outcomes.
Incompetent malice still appears to me to be malice. Some alternate universe likely has a different Trump that managed to enact the speculated policies in terms of ruthless efficiency, this other America maybe having all Muslim citizens expelled if they were abroad at a certain point where no additional Muslims were allowed... those Muslims already here made to do things such as put their identities into carefully watched state registries. I wouldn't call Trump a fascist. However, he advocated moving the country in the direction similar to that of the mass increases in discrimination and hatred that happened in, say, Weimar Germany and other places.
That he failed in large degree to do that matters. It also matters that he didn't clearly articulate some kind of intellectual vision of destroying democracy and have supporters cheer. However, something like... softening the ground for future authoritarianism by somebody else is rather horrifying, in my opinion.
You bring up a point discussed earlier but, alas, quickly dropped. It's a good one. Federalism would nice given our current system.
People better suited to live in what's called, for lack of a better term, a 'blue state' have been migrating as such more and more recently. At least, I think, this is happening a lot in the past twenty years at a level different than earlier. And, of course, the 'red states' have similar trends.
While federalism may not necessarily be the solution to long-term problems, in the short-term... I'd certainly like to see quite a lot of reforms at the federal government level so that matters return to not just states but also local administrations. That would be fantastic. Hell, maybe non-governmental efforts could be made to help movers do their thing? A sort of charity-ish service to ease transitions? Maybe?
File: 1619134037828.jpg (70.42 KB, 682x400, 341:200, squirrel2_676881a.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9111>If a uniformed neo-Nazi takes something I like and intentionally tries to destroy its public image,
To me, their ends matter a lot less than the means by which they pursue the ends. If they try to destroy something's public image by spreading false propaganda about it, then I would be angry at them. But if they are merely using a meme themselves, I don't think I have a right to complain.>If a Mitt Romney type center-right activist decides that 1/3 of squirrels on Twitter being dicey means that absolutely everybody into the fuzzy things should change their lives completely and admit cultural defeat... I'd consider that person to be an idiot, but I wouldn't consider them to be morally wrong
I think the activist would be acting unethically if he falsely accuses others of being far-right simply because they're squirrel-posting.
"Inferences" are a weird term to use for not being willing to take unflinching hostility from the get-go and not being happy with somebody else's an absolute unwillingness to see you as a regular human worth regular decency, but... oh, well, that appears inevitable. I'm not a conservative. I'm the other. I'm different. Moral rules that would apply to another conservatives don't apply to me. Not in the tribe.
I mean, look, I understand that the double-standard is there. A conservative is allowed to hate a non-conservative from the get-go. To call them names. To refuse to consider any points. To shut down everything.
This means not just the standard childish name calling but all kinds of accusations about being the worst of the worst. You're stupid. You're a liar. You're worthless. Etc. It may be put into those terms explicitly, it may be implied, it may be insinuated, or whatever else. But that's life. You're not allowed to disagree with God's ideal people.
I don't know. I used to be... maybe not quite a conservative in the true philosophical sense, but at least Red Tribe in many practical terms. I realize that this makes me worse than just an other but something more horrible, a defector, like... eh.
I know that this is 2021 and modern America as it is now and I should simply 'get over it'. Conservatives are allowed to think, say, and do things to non-conservatives that non-conservatives can't do back, not that doing so would be right ethically in the first place, mind. Somebody posting a death threat on Twitter will get kid gloves treatment in one instance and not the other. Same thing in other platforms. Everything else in terms of uncivil behavior... there's that absolute moral license that because Trump did 'X', you can do 'X' now. I guess.
I apologize for rambling. I wish that the tide could be turned. Conservatives as a group were fundamentally different in the very near past. Maybe they can become like that again.
I don't believe that this framing is correct. Conservatives started off viewing Biden as horrible and coming up with everything that they could to throw at him, tossing whatever they could at the wall and hoping it sticks. This included pedophilia. The issue of Biden's weird, touchy-feely attitudes and behavior towards people of all ages and gender got taken in as belated justification. They invented a meme of him touching little girls using his weird behavior, and now something that isn't pedophilic (while, of course, still wrong) is used as evidence for the article of faith among a lot of conservatives that he's a pedophile.
This takes place in the general context that conservatives will routinely accuse people of being pedophilic as a matter of course. In specific terms, there's the Pizzagate conspiracy that's now blossomed into QAnon. There's also the cardinal beliefs that, like I stated before, conservatives will blast both LGBT rights movements in general and transgender rights efforts specifically as efforts to corrupt children.
File: 1619135419332.jpg (93.91 KB, 512x810, 256:405, 1517454705023.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Look, I know that we have animal names on /townhall/, but sometimes it's not hard to tell who someone is. I'm not sure who you are, but I'm fairly confident who Beautiful Hare is. And I can tell you that you're totally off base in what you're assuming about him. He gets really pissed off when people misrepresent his position. It has absolutely NOTHING
to do with your politics or your personal characteristics. Given that you've already admitted in >>9108
that:>I'm sure with absolute certainty I've both been misrepresented myself and misrepresented others, it happens
I suggest that you simply apologize for mistakenly misrepresenting him and try hard not to misrepresent him in the future.>>9110>lying about me,
I really don't think Charitable Emu is lying (i.e., intentionally
spreading falsehoods). His/her misrepresentation comes from simple negligence, not malevolent intent.
They already said I didn't actually say what they claimed, albeit with the attempted lacklustre justification that it is what they assumed I meant by some other aspects of my posts.
But I get your meaning. It's a presumption of tribalism.
There's quite a lot here, but frankly there's very little that I can productively respond to.
To be short about it (without trying to be rude), I try as a general rule in my life to treat other people better than how I rationally expect them to treat me. As such, there's been quite a lot of quite helpful discussion in this thread (especially in the initial posts) that I appreciate as well as this unfortunate, ongoing issue. I don't like being mistreated, everything taking place from simple name-calling to all manner of assertions about intelligence, morality, perspective, et cetera, but I understand that from your own personal point of view this is deserved for specific reasons, particularly given that it seems that you see the situation as "they hit me first" due to some particular post and thus rapid escalation was warranted. And saying things to me that I wouldn't say to you was justified. I understand that's how you feel.
I don't have the patience of a saint. I also don't particularly care for the social double-standard. You appear to be coming from the perspective of "You're not allowing me to attack you and simply take it without any pushback." and that's fine, but I can't even begin to get the sense that it's even starting to be fair or reasonable for that to have actually been happening. That's quite wrong. I think.
I'm genuinely quite angry, I confess, at having all this happen to me without being able to respond in kind due to the double-standard, even though I understand that given my own ethics that responding in kind would be wrong. And, yes, even slightly being negative and slightly coming across as critical without completely trying my best to represent every single point fairly isn't acceptable since my ethics are like I've stated. I don't have the patience of a saint, but I should.
I'm really not sure what further to say. Your negativity has been noted, like I've said before. I don't wish to respond in kind, even though given the fact that I'm human I've managed to let a little negativity seep in back. Can you just, to be honest, drop it?
This is getting incredibly abstract, but I'd say that I consider means and ends to be more or less equally important when it comes to just about all ethical and political debates.
Admittedly, I've little clue how to apply this standard coherently.
For this example, I'd say that the activist would be at fault to an extremely minor degree while the neo-Nazi would be primarily at fault, and the former would deserve polite intellectual criticism while the latter would deserve fervent opposition.
A rather gigantic gulf exists between one person being accused of an intellectual misreprenstation, especially when this was already clearly explained as not happening (because one person apparently decides that they cannot read statements made in regular course the way that they're explicitly intended), and the other person unleashing a torrent of abuse, language of the likes of "asshole", "liar", "coward", "fuck off", et cetera falling from the sky like rain, from a position of deliberate obfuscation. Where the other person's commentary gets misrepresented over and over again... yeah. I'm not sure what to say.
As well, an apology was already made for something earlier in the thread. The response was a)to not even consider accepting the apology and b)to attack the apologizer.
I'm... not going to do that again.
>>9123>As well, an apology was already made for something earlier in the thread. The response was a)to not even consider accepting the apology and b)to attack the apologizer.>>I'm... not going to do that again.
I think you're mispredicting how Beautiful Hare will react to you apologizing for mistakenly misrepresenting him. >>9120
Would you be willing to accept an apology?
File: 1619137998616.png (183.62 KB, 600x420, 10:7, marsfood2.png) ImgOps Google
You know, I think I agree. Moving is a pain, but I moved to a blue state because I need LGBT acceptance to survive. I mean, these things are not rigid, but why not stack the odds in your favor?
Some may move because they feel society must have heternormal order to survive.
Guess the level of discretion states deserve has been a big American issue from the beginning. I think the tendency is less and less power to the states over time, perhaps for reasons of efficiency or unity, perhaps for reasons of belief in universal human nature and fear of backwardness in states that might prefer to violate human rights.
I rarely browse /pol/ and aren't 100% familiar with the anti-Biden memes in terms of their origins, only their later usage, and so perhaps the temporal sequencing is ambiguous? Or maybe a few scattered memes came from certain commentators a while before mass attention came in?
I don't really know how to research the subject in depth. If you've any links yourself, I appreciate sharing. I freely concede I might be uninformed here (hence, I guess, while I used the wishy-washy post opener "I don't believe that this framing is correct" instead of "Nope", hah).
>>9123>accused of an intellectual misreprenstation, especially when this was already clearly explained as not happening (because one person apparently decides that they cannot read statements made in regular course the way that they're explicitly intended)
Not sure what you mean by this. You clearly said in >>9056
:>Once again, you ... throw ..., claiming that I'm an evil monster....
But Beautiful Hare never claimed that you were an evil monster.>the other person unleashing a torrent of abuse
Yeah, Beautiful Hare was unfortunately rather extreme in his reaction. I don't disagree with you in that regard.
>>9121>I don't like being mistreated, everything taking place from simple name-calling to all manner of assertions about intelligence, morality, perspective, et cetera,
I am similar, in that I of course dislike being mistreated. But, one distinction I note here, I differentiate between assertions of my perspective or philosophy or way of thinking when it comes to morality, and insults to my character.
I don't see critics of my way of looking at things, what all I have seen in my life, or anything like that as rude or negative.
Maybe this is the cause of the issue. I believe I did say at a few points that I don't think your perspective is accurate. In doesn't lineup with reality as I see it.
That was not intended as any kind of mistreatment or insult, simply my saying I have seen different.>but I understand that from your own personal point of view this is deserved for specific reasons, particularly given that it seems that you see the situation as "they hit me first" due to some particular post and thus rapid escalation was warranted.
Yes, I am more of an eye for an eye type.
I believe you should receive what you give, and in turn, get what you give.
Do unto others as they do to you.
At least in so far as you treat those who do not give respect without respect. I have actions I view in moral light specifically, such as lying about somebody. That I wouldn't do regardless of the circumstances, at least in abstract. I might do so to prove a point, but not on its own, and it'd be cleared up quickly as something done to demonstrate its wrongness.
Here are the Specific posts since you sounded like you weren't sure what I took issue with.>>9056>"Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster "
And >>9070>"Can you respond to the actual intellectual points instead of going on as you have been from the beginning about how I'm such a horrid subhuman ">You appear to be coming from the perspective of "You're not allowing me to attack you and simply take it without any pushback."
Not at all. In fact it is the reverse.
You have as I see it swung a punch, to which I have responded.
I have attacked you because you have as I see it lied aboutme. >but I can't even begin to get the sense that it's even starting to be fair or reasonable for that to have actually been happening. That's quite wrong. I think.
And I likewise don't understand why lying about somebody could ever be acceptable.
My stance is more that you should receive what you give. In this way part of and Lack of understanding is likely due to a different set of moral philosophy.>And, yes, even slightly being negative and slightly coming across as critical without completely trying my best to represent every single point fairly isn't acceptable since my ethics are like I've stated.
Then perhaps you can explain to me come out why is it OK to say what you did earlier? I don't think it's ever really been addressed sadly.
I certainly would find such acts to be a significant example of negativity.
To be frank, "apologizing" is kind of a vague word.
I genuinely don't know what BH is precisely looking for, in wording terms.
If I try really, really hard, I can see this hypothetical conversation happening after we both try to feel less angry:>BH>"Look, for God's sake, I understand completely that you've experienced buttloads of conservatives saying nasty things as well as doing nasty things in your life. I also get that you find buttloads of actual policy actions and other stuff nasty as hell too, probably to the point of actually harming you and not just hurting your feelings. And I agree. I get pissed the hell off what a lot of other conservatives put on me. Goddamn it, President Trump literally said on national television that he wanted peoples' guns to be taken away by the cops in red flag law places without any recourse. No real investigations or shit. Just, whoop, screw you, you can't have your gun. I look at conservatives who were fine with this and they might as well be Martians to me.">"And like, the neo-Nazis? Or anybody's who's generally far right, somebody with hang ups who just can't deal with their neighbors being Jewish or whatever? They're morons at the very least. Can't even begin to put myself in the mindset of where their claims would make sense.">"But like, dude, at a fucking common sense level, you have to accept the fact that buttloads of conservatives are here, not just me like a ton of my friends and others, who can't even begin to imagine getting along with that alt-right shit. And, from everything that I've seen, that's most conservatives in the U.S. as a whole. But, look, that's okay. Bro, I'm not gonna invalidate your life. Sometime people will act like complete dicks, and sometimes they'll happen to be conservatives. And the neo-Nazis or whatever essentially wallow in being dicks.">"But don't turn it around and invalidate my life, okay? You do you. I do me. My experiences matter too. My perspective. It's a free country, your piece is only spoken if mine comes next. I'm not gonna pretend like every conservative is Mister Rogers, but you also gotta accept the fact yourself that some of them try to be. Even if they can't really. And buttloads of people, like myself, will happen to live lives without ever experiencing the shit you're talking about.">"It sucks to be hated. Even if you're being hated over something that isn't a big deal to you or all of these complicating factors come in. It just sucks. So, like, I know it's bad to have conservative after conservative coming at you before you even open your mouth. We're just not all like that. It sucks to be accused of hating someone when you don't actually feel that too, alright?">"I understand that you think that, okay, maybe we're not **all** like that but maybe **most** of us are. I can't agree. At the same time, does it matter right now? **I'm** not like that. We off and on hopped from treating each other like independent people to treating each other as stereotypes, isn't the fact that we flip-flopped so much kind of clear evidence that stereotyping is a shitty way to think?">"You came in here thinking that somebody'd be out to get you, and maybe that'd be true like if this was, say, hotheads on Twitter. It's absolutely not true with **me**. I think you just can't understand me. And that's... well, it's not okay, but it's not your fault or anything. And I know I can't understand you. I tried. You tried.">"I'm really, really sorry for calling you an 'asshole', telling you to 'fuck off', and just in general how everything went off the rails. I'm human, dude. You pissed me off. It's not just that we disagree over what the conservative movement is and what the Republican Party is, which is fine, but you kept seeming to me to be implying that I'm somehow too close to the far right nuts. And seeming to me to be implying that conservatives just by being conservative can't help but be hateful and otherwise do bad shit. What can I say, I got angry.">"I'm apologize for misinterpreting you. I'd like you to apologize for misinterpreting me. I know that, from your point of view, I've hit you in the face with a baseball bat while you've hit me in the thigh with a feather. Maybe just try to not hit each other at all?"
ME>"Okay, look, I regret not being able to 100% always understand every single think that you've been saying as well as not being able to 100% respond to everything that you've been saying with unconditional saint-like patience and clarity. To be honest, your views on reality in the U.S. itself, not to mention your own sense of ethics, is so different than what not just I but what I think most believe see that you might as well be from Venus. And you really, come on, shouldn't have gone straight to the gutter the moment I crossed the line from disagreeing with you a bit to disagreeing with you too much.">"I understand that you're mad I didn't interpret everything that you said everything the way that it meant, in your mind, all of the time. I don't think that your expectations are reasonable. I also don't think that it makes sense for you to be this cheesed off when you've done the exact same thing back to me in spades.">"I can't apologize in the sense of 'I'm sorry for hurting you' because I both didn't meant to hurt and also didn't actually hurt you. If you need that, then I can't give it. I can, because you apologized to me first, though... and since you're trying really to calm down... alright, I'll stick my neck through.">"I think I, without intending to do anything wrong, probably haven't interpreted what you've said in the way that it's been intended. I'm sorry that that's happened. I regret it. I also regret having an emotional argument in a formerly productive thread in the first place. I don't think it's fair to expect me to be perfect, to expect me to 100% be in total agreement with somebody who might as well be another species than me in terms of their beliefs, but I accept the fact that I didn't try hard enough. I didn't meet my own high moral standards. I'm sorry."
You made an explicit statement. You said I claimed something I never did. This is a little more than intellectual misrepresentation.
I think rudeness should beget rudeness. >especially when this was already clearly explained as not happening
I recall no such statements.
I had asked for clarification several times, with no effect that I saw.
What posts explain the matter? Could you please link them?>from a position of deliberate obfuscation.
I certainly was not engaging in any kind of deliberate obfuscation.
I genuinely was angry that you would say such things of me. >As well, an apology was already made for something earlier in the thread. The response was a)to not even consider accepting the apology and b)to attack the apologizer.
I stand by my position that an apology as you do something you believe is wrong is no apology whatsoever.
It is certainly not the same thing as admitting something you did was wrong in retrospect, and apologizing for that. >>9124>Would you be willing to accept an apology?
Basically all I really wanted.
File: 1619141286114.png (350.25 KB, 815x1139, 815:1139, 9130a.png) ImgOps Google
Oh dear, that's quite an unreadable textwall...
File: 1619141331444.png (325.03 KB, 985x1338, 985:1338, 9130b.png) ImgOps Google
... but setting
makes it more readable.
I'm going to be charitable, best as I can.
If somebody abuses and mistreats another person over and over again, refusing to engage with them reasonably and otherwise display basic niceness, in the subtext that mere disagreement (albeit fundamental disagreement over moral values) constitutes a horrific affront to them... the aggressor being someone who openly states that their ethical code is to treat others poorly if the other looks like they may act poorly first or later (not just 'eye for an eye' but 'strike first, strike hard, no mercy')... then like...
Okay, look. If it quacks like a duck... alright? If somebody chooses to behave in a way that they appear to fail to recognize me as human, let alone somebody worth treating as a reasonable conservation, and otherwise is like this, I'm going to **obviously** not like it and **obviously** think that it's because they have presumptions of me being "evil".
"Asshole". "Coward". "Fuck off". "Liar". It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on... and on.
No, this person hasn't chosen to take the letter 'E' and put it alongside the letter 'V' before adding a 'I' and then an 'L'. Nope. Hasn't happened.
They consider me evil. They've called me evil. I'm evil, to them. I'm not a complete Goddamn idiot who's unable to understand that if somebody starts smacking me upside the head that maybe they don't like me very much and probably would prefer me not to existence.
Please don't drop my ice cream cone in a pile of dog feces and tell me that it's just sprinkles, okay?
Putting this as politely as I can, I don't believe a ethical belief system of "I'm going to treat a random somebody I don't really know as badly as I rationally expect them to treat me given my particular presumptions" is anywhere near a good way to live ones' life.
If I lived like that, then I would be unable to engage in... maybe only a tiny fraction of the social interactions that I currently do. And my opportunities would only be a tiny fraction as otherwise. My life experiences would otherwise be as such.
"I can tell that he's really going to fuckin' nail me, so I'll nail him me first" or "Strike first, strike hard, no mercy" or "Eye for an eye, poke their eye out if you think they're coming for yours" or... I know that you'd probably like to frame your moral system differently, and I accept that (and I'm deliberately using colloquial language in a glib way when I could be academic and nuanced). Yet that's what it appears your take boils down to. It's... I mean, I'm obviously not going to say that your system is morally horrible and wrong (What even is 'moral wrongness'? Philosophers can't define it really and neither can I.). I will say that it's something I think I'm not psychologically able to feel.
Like asking me to feel as you do would be like asking a human to touch something using their octopus tentacles. Not actually possible. I suppose.
>>9130>I genuinely don't know what BH is precisely looking for, in wording terms.
I think something like "I apologize for misinterpreting you and claiming you said something that you didn't. I will try to be more careful in the future." would suffice.>>9134>They consider me evil.
Beautiful Hare considers lying about someone to be evil (or at least that's my presumption, given his posts here), and he stated that he thought that you were lying about him. So, it might be reasonable to conclude that he thought that your act
of alleged lying was evil. But I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude that he thinks you are irredeemably evil in some fundamental sense.
>>9134>If somebody abuses and mistreats another person over and over again, refusing to engage with them reasonably and otherwise display basic niceness, in the subtext that mere disagreement
Oh, hey, it's exactly how I feel, but to you.
I have cited where the 1st strike lay
It isn't as you imply some attack before you do something.
Likewise it has absolutely nothing to do with your ideology.
Never said expect. I gave you the specifics as to why.
I did it again in the very post you are replying to.
Strawmanning is not likely to endear me to you.
I literally quoted to him exactly what I took issue with multiple times now, and yet he somehow doesn't get this still
I would like a response to:>>9130
My empathy tanks are empty at the moment. I still believe in the principle of treating others better than how they treat you. However, it appears that it's being established that an apology will only be considered if it's worded in a way that appears to be factually incorrect as well as is missing context, everything set in a way that depicts me in as negative terms as possible. And no apologies will be given back, the double-standard of modern political communication that's been mentioned above being absolute. And, even then, the apology might not be accepted.
I'm afraid that I'm not able to offer that.
It appears that either the issue is dropped or the conversation has to end completely (or, alternately, a reasonable request made instead).
>>9144>an apology will only be considered if it's worded in a way that appears to be factually incorrect
Huh? What do you think is factually incorrect about my suggested apology in >>9137
I mean it's really long, and I don't quite know what to say to it exactly.
I suppose I could give a more in depth analysis when I get home.>However, it appears that it's being established that an apology will only be considered if it's worded in a way that appears to be factually incorrect as well as is missing context, everything set in a way that depicts me in as negative terms as possible.
Then perhaps you could clarify what exactly the issue is.
Do you think that I actually did call you a monster and a subhuman?>And no apologies will be given back, the double-standard of modern political communication that's been mentioned above being absolute.
I don't know what you mean about political communication, but I can't deny you are correct I wouldn't really apologize yond the saying that some parts went a little higher than they should have as consequence of essentially ranting into my phone.
I think who started things matters.>And, even then, the apology might not be accepted.
Depends on how it is set.
I have something of a rule to be as quick to forgive as I am quick to anger.
So long as it is honest and from the heart I don't really have cause to refuse it.
The whole reason it was last time was that it was in the same breath.
>>9130>that big green textwall
You're talking about the alt-right, conservatives, etc. That is all completely unrelated
to reason that Beautiful Hare flipped out on you. He already told you in >>9112
exactly why he flipped out.
Like, do you really not see how you claimed he said something that he actually didn't?
>>9149>you are correct I wouldn't really apologize yond the saying that some parts went a little higher than they should have as consequence of essentially ranting into my phone.
I think you can apologize for accusing Charitable Emu of lying
when he wasn't intentionally
spreading falsehoods but was merely negligent, confusing his mental interpretation of your words with what your words actually were.
Mmm, it's significantly negligent, if so, As he outright said I claimed something I did not.
I suppose you're still correct, though, so I guess it'd be appropriate.
Presuming that is what occurred anyway. I still don't think I've received any clarification on the matter at all. >>9152
In that case I can at least apologise for that, as I took it badly.
To me, it had read as just apologizing for what was done in the same post.
>>9146>"I apologize for misinterpreting you"
I'm not a perfect specimen of comprehension and understanding able to read minds and otherwise unconditionally interpret every single statement made by every single person who ever talks to me 100% correct. I don't expect others to be such. I shouldn't be expected to be such.
A rational observer would say that statements should probably be seen in context. Poorly expressed assertions based on unpopular viewpoints that most people not only don't share but don't understand are highly likely to be subject to misinterpretation. As well, this isn't completely one side, and obviously all parties to a discussion ought to at least try to come across reasonably and clearly, especially in the sense of treating others charitably.
And, perhaps most importantly, misinterpretation is neither a moral wrong nor something that can really be argued is necessarily that big of a deal. Common sense ought to apply. Proportion ought to apply. >"and claiming you said something that you didn't."
That... didn't happen. I'm not sure what to say here. I can't lie during an apology. It wouldn't then be an apology.>"I will try to be more careful in the future."
It's not possible for me to be more careful. I came into this thread with the deliberate intention of being nicer to other people than I rationally expected them to treat me as well as to continue being nicer to them then they repeatedly act to me. And I've been doing that.
If you're asking me to be, as described above, a perfect machine of processing to where I can unreasonably be seen to essentially read minds, then I can't do that. And, look, I really want to highlight this point. An apology that lies isn't an apology at all.
To be honest, the most likely practical application of this conversation is that for a certain point of time I'll be greatly depressed. Not just at how I wasted something like an entire day doing nothing productive, but that I in fact engaged in a heroin addiction like form of self-harm in trying to engage with people politically that I simply probably can't really engage with (I'm a former Republican, I'm a former Christian, I'm a former conservative, and I live in an area with a lot of those three while having friends and family of those three... I genuinely don't want to be unable to have regular nice interaction with other people who I don't want to inherently see as alien beings). And that will suck.>[...]
Please don't insult me or pretend that I'm something less than human. An apology from me is only coming as I get one back. The apology back must not only include feeling sorry for misrepresenting and misunderstanding me (to the point where I've been frequently lied about, but I won't insist on the word "lie" being a part of the statement), but it must also involve specifically admitting that crossing the line into abusive, snide remarks was wrong. And it finally must involve an admission that assumptions have been made about me without evidence were wrong (I'm also willing to add to whatever I say that I expressed assumptions that were unfair).
In addition, apologies to me and from me will only make sense if context is included. Why did these misinterpretations occur? Since they were understandable given the situations, this must be noted (although I personally see the assumptions that've been made about me to have no connection to reality and have been disproportionate, but I understand that other people might not see me as the open book I see myself as).
>>9154>That... didn't happen. I'm not sure what to say here. I can't lie during an apology. It wouldn't then be an apology.
So you think I actually did call you a monster and a subhuman?
Could you please show me when?
I will give it a read when I get home if you like. I cannot read it at the moment.>>9156
If you punch somebody, I could hardly care less if you end up laid out.
As to nicety it rings on hollow ears when you seem to be perfectly happy to claim I said something I never did.
>>9154>I'm not a perfect specimen of comprehension and understanding able to read minds and otherwise unconditionally interpret every single statement made by every single person who ever talks to me 100% correct. I don't expect others to be such. I shouldn't be expected to be such.>And, perhaps most importantly, misinterpretation is neither a moral wrong ...
Right, but you can still apologize when you make a mistake. >>9154> nor something that can really be argued is necessarily that big of a deal. Common sense ought to apply. Proportion ought to apply.
Yeah, I agree. I think BH should apologize to you for responding so disproportionately to a mere mistake.>>9154>>"and claiming you said something that you didn't.">>That... didn't happen
BH has pointed out multiple times that you claimed that he called you a monster. He challenged you to find one post of his where did that, and you never did so.
If it really was just a mistake, a good way to make things shorter and deescalate things next time would be to say so, when it comes up. Explain it, you know?
I don't think I've ever seen anything at all said to what I had quoted several times
>>9155>However, to have my genuine and sincere attempt at understanding to be casually dismissed out of hand
You're approaching it completely the wrong way. The core issue is what BH said in >>9112
:> my issue is with the post> >>9056> >"Once again, you take what you've done and throw it back at me, claiming that I'm an evil monster "> And> >>9070> >"Can you respond to the actual intellectual points instead of going on as you have been from the beginning about how I'm such a horrid subhuman "> Respectively> > I never called you a monster, or otherwise claimed you were, and I certainly never said you were sub human.
Until you and BH can at least agree on whether he was claiming that you were "evil monster", nothing further will be successfully resolved.
I think you're putting a lot more value into it then it deserves, really.
Honestly, more than anything I just really want an explanation why, especially why it went unaddressed this whole time.
The apology aspect is a part of that, but I don't think as far as I've seen there's been an explanation why you did it so far at all.
The thread was fine, I liked the op, and agreed with much of the concept.
It was the generalizations that caused argument from me, And the presumptions my arguments that caused deterioration further into fight territory
If you wake up and feel like explaining it, I still would like to understand why you thought I called you a monster and a subhuman.
As far as I can tell that never happened, yet you claimed I did anyway.
File: 1619148949296.png (174.34 KB, 1647x811, 1647:811, gf-left-because-lats.png) ImgOps Google
>>9168>As far as I can tell that never happened, yet you claimed I did anyway.
The only think I can think of is that Charitable Emu really horrifically misinterpreted what you said, like on the scale of pic related, due to radically different worldviews and faulty presuppositions of what your beliefs are.
With a bit of distance, it has now become clear as crystal that the both the specific treatment of me as well as the general way in which the thread's actual purpose has been treated (in terms of the ideas that were thought to have been worth hashing out) has been so shockingly unacceptable, not just in a common sense fashion but explicitly in a way that violates the website's guidelines here, that the thread itself likely shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's done more harm than good. At any rate, future productive discussion will not be allowed given that continual bad behavior is guaranteed.
My own behavior has been unreasonably doormat-like in a way that can be fairly argued invites abuse. When somebody like me doesn't stand up for myself, it sets a signal that this is just how people ought to be if they're considered that 'easy'. To be crude, I was 'asking for it'. I regret that this happened, but I'm also not really going to change my personality and nature even if this keeps happening throughout my life, with 'asking for it' being a way of thinking that should be corrected in the first place rather than people seen as 'asking for it' being shamed.
Given this, I politely request for the thread to be deleted. I would like for no user to receive any sort of moderator action (of course, I'd clearly say this about myself, but what I mean is: don't do that to anybody). If deletion isn't possible, please lock this thread.
If this doesn't happen, then I will request those things a second time, just making sure that I'm heard properly. I understand that it won't happen immediately. Thanks.
I hope that everybody has a great Friday. Stay safe. Remember that there's still a pandemic going on.
Your OP and the ideas therein had nothing to do with our troubles, and likewise for your political beliefs, as I told you directly several times.
And as for "asking for it" because you're supposedly acting like a doormat, a doormat wouldn't accuse me of something I did not do.
Doormats aren't in the habit of claiming something occurred that factually and objectively did not. >>9173
A desire for apology shouldn't be a matter of reasonability, it should be a matter of morality.
To take your incident as an example, regardless of your own unwise action in relation to that check, if someone stole it, they acted immorally and, if they are a person of quality, should apologize and make it right.
Don't let your own troubles get in the way of seeing right and wrong. If something done is wrong, that ought to be all that matters. Take some pride in yourself, and argue morality from what "ought", not what "is".
If enough of us do, we may well find the world improves.