The Maelstrom of Violence

[Eric the Green]

(07-15-2017, 10:47 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The correct choice is to ignore Taramarie. Further conclusions from that, are not warranted.

The NRA...  Taramarie...  For amusement I'll keep a list.

(07-15-2017, 01:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your term "your perspective is flawed" was too general and all-embracing. I could not agree with it; nor does it seem the best claim to make if you want someone to listen. I don't say that "your perspective is flawed" on all issues, as such a claim would imply. I consider your perspective good on many things. In general, it's probably best not to make such over-arching general judgements. My preference, when I disagree with someone personally in a dialogue, is to point out the truth as I see it on particular issues, or question assumptions, etc. I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.

First, I never said "your perspective is flawed".  Try “Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.”  Ironically, I can echo “I often make more over-arching statements about groups, such as "Republicans," but there's always exceptions among individual members of those groups.”  Mine was a broad statement about extreme partisans.  Alas, a lot of extreme partisans perceive themselves to be exceptions when they are not.

Why do I say that?  Extreme partisans cling tightly to unusual world views.  In order to cling to these extreme world views, they have to reject information.  This may take the form of rejecting information from sources they don’t like, rejecting contact with certain individuals, forming strawman notions of what opposing partisans believe, misquoting people, or refusing to continue a contact that isn’t going well.  It’s all par for the course.

You, I don’t worry about going silent.  You may well stop listening, but you don’t tend to fall quiet.

Anyway, if you expect those you disagree with you to be defeated or subdued, how do you expect those who disagree to behave?  If you are going to spam ridicule, do you not expect returned comment?

If people want to disagree with what John Oliver or Seth Meyers say, that's their privilege. Maybe they can back it up; although I doubt it. If you call posting them "spam," that's your insult. If you refuse to admit that, while criticizing people for not being civil, that's your hypocrisy.

My refusal to continue mis-dialogue with terror-marie, has nothing to do with my world-view, which btw is not an unusual one. Of course, you are making general statements in this post above, so I can assume it's not a personal description of me..... I won't dispute further what you said about my perspective; time to move on.....

Why should anyone not want an opposing group to be defeated? That's just politics, and history. Things need to move forward. That means the old ways have to go. If people disagree about which side is out of date, well, that's how things go too. You can't escape these conflicts by worrying about how people will behave. The conflict and the choice has to be faced.

This is a 4T. Should we have worried about how people would behave if we expected to defeat and subdue the Nazis? Or Dixie? Or King George? No. Or even without war, the Tories? The Democrats under Pierce, Buchanan, Douglas and Breckinridge? Or the Republicans of Hoover and Landon? No. One side was defeated and subdued, and one side was victorious and moved on to shape history.