The Maelstrom of Violence

[Eric the Green]

(07-07-2017, 07:30 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2017, 09:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No question about Daily Banter being a blue site; already admitted. Yet you feel the need to say it again, Bob.

I feel I do. You seem dedicated to spamming this forum with blue heavily spun stuff. There are no red equivalents posting Breitbart or similar red sources anywhere near your frequency. If there were, I doubt such spun stuff would add a lot to the conversation.

I post what I feel people can learn from and enjoy, and I want to rally the blue side too. Or bring reality to bear however I see it. Others can do what they want. But for those who watch TV, late night comics are about the only coverage of the news they get. Have you considered that? ABC offers almost no coverage of the news at all. NBC at least has Seth Meyers, and CBS has Stephen Colbert. And not much else. Are you aware than nightly news programs today are mostly visual tittillation? The former news magazines are now all crime stories. All entertainment.

Quote:

(07-07-2017, 09:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Allergic reactions to it from the red side are not a concern at this point. This is a 4T. As I said, the aim is to dispense the truth to those still open to it. The truth is there in that article amidst the spin. Readers and listeners will have to assume in a 4T that things are going to be spun, and not get so dizzy that one cannot discern the truth amidst the spin. It's not that hard. And it's not that hard to tell that there's more truth on the blue side than on the red side, for those that are open to the truth.

I, at least, am concerned with creating and maintaining some degree of communication between the factions. Spamming each other with spun junk doesn't seem to me to be any more 'communication' than poking a bear with a sharp stick.

The Daily Banter story is just one indication that such communication is no longer possible. As I said, my posts may vary from factual reports to blue spin and humor pokes, (and philosophical speculation and T4T theory discussion too, etc.; I have a wide range), but the only potential audience today for what I say or post are younger people still learning what's going on. And to rally and inform the blue side; that is needed too. And I do learn things too from what people post, and get mistakes corrected.

But unwanted counseling for proper behavior? I recommend that you, Dr. Rani/nihilistwhat'shername and Taramarie set up your own forum where you can correct each others' behavior all day, and leave the rest of us alone.

And your posts can be hypocritical at times; arguing for neutrality and communication, and at the same time arguing the blue side, mostly. Often just as vociferously as me, and with more insults toward fellow posters than me.

Quote:[quote]

(07-07-2017, 09:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think this quote from that blue site is very true: "You cannot reach out and find common ground with people who do not acknowledge reality in any way." That applies to lots of people on the red side, and many more than on the blue side. And the fact that people on the red side assumed what they did about the NPR post, is factual evidence of that.

Yep. This is good reason to rebut people who do not acknowledge reality in any way.

They have to be rebutted. Evil is allowed to triumph if good people do nothing. Fake news and lies prevail in the public discourse if they are not rebutted. The goal is not to communicate with the liars. The goal is to make sure that some truth and reality gets out.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2017, 08:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They have to be rebutted. Evil is allowed to triumph if good people do nothing. Fake news and lies prevail in the public discourse if they are not rebutted. The goal is not to communicate with the liars. The goal is to make sure that some truth and reality gets out.

If you are interested in truth and reality, then why are you pushing blue spin?

I have been imagining the amount and degree of humiliation and lies that you are spamming being directed at a minority group, say the blacks or the jews.  Do you think you’d raise a little objection?

Yet, the same degree of hatred and prejudice seems to be accepted as normal when directed at a political group.  It isn’t hard to understand why red folk are upset with the major media dissing them constantly.

In an odd way, I’m reminded of the Alt Right’s attitude that political correctness should be equated with tyranny, oppression and government over reach.  You are whining at the notion that you ought to be civil and polite to reds.  You see it as your duty to spam humiliation and propaganda.  Red folk are bombarded constantly from both coasts by tons of it.  If the blue folk can be blatantly and continuously obnoxious to them, why can’t they pick on racial or religious minorities?  The Alt Right believes in a right to be obnoxious, that no one should attempt to stop them.

I’m dubious about that notion, but obviously in the minority here.  The right to be obnoxious seems to be riding high right now.  It’s so much fun to be cruel and antagonistic towards people.  Why should a bully stop when there are so many people to be cruel to out there?

[irony] Except no one is allowed to be mean to me.  Being mean to someone else is clearly OK.  Being mean to me?  That’s different. [/irony]

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2017, 08:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2017, 08:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They have to be rebutted. Evil is allowed to triumph if good people do nothing. Fake news and lies prevail in the public discourse if they are not rebutted. The goal is not to communicate with the liars. The goal is to make sure that some truth and reality gets out.

If you are interested in truth and reality, then why are you pushing blue spin?

Because that's where the truth is. A lot of the time. There's truth and reality on the blue side; much less on the red side. That's just the way party politics is these days. It hasn't always been that way. But we are now 1850s redux. The blue and red roughly equals the blue and gray.

Quote:I have been imagining the amount and degree of humiliation and lies that you are spamming being directed at a minority group, say the blacks or the jews.  Do you think you’d raise a little objection?

I am posting truth; you are posting insults.

Quote:Yet, the same degree of hatred and prejudice seems to be accepted as normal when directed at a political group.  It isn’t hard to understand why red folk are upset with the major media dissing them constantly.

That only proves their stupidity; the fact that they are upset and that's the reason they vote red. Both sides are upset, because both are angry at each other. You didn't know that, Bob? Really? What about understanding blue folks upset with media dissing the blue side constantly?

Quote:In an odd way, I’m reminded of the Alt Right’s attitude that political correctness should be equated with tyranny, oppression and government over reach.  You are whining at the notion that you ought to be civil and polite to reds.  You see it as your duty to spam humiliation and propaganda.  Red folk are bombarded constantly from both coasts by tons of it.  If the blue folk can be blatantly and continuously obnoxious to them, why can’t they pick on racial or religious minorities?  The Alt Right believes in a right to be obnoxious, that no one should attempt to stop them.

Humor is part of civil discourse. Take it up with Mr. Nast.

You insult me by saying I spam. Again, insulting a poster is fine with you; pointing out the ridiculous ideas and behavior of the red politicians, not one of whom is posting here, is not fine with you. You have things backwards.

Quote:I’m dubious about that notion, but obviously in the minority here.  The right to be obnoxious seems to be riding high right now.  It’s so much fun to be cruel and antagonistic towards people.  Why should a bully stop when there are so many people to be cruel to out there?

[irony] Except no one is allowed to be mean to me.  Being mean to someone else is clearly OK.  Being mean to me?  That’s different. [/irony]

Being mean to individuals posting on a site is OK and proper behavior for you to do, you think. But political humor is bullying, you say. But it is not bullying. If you think so, then you don't respect the first amendment well enough. Bullying is often against the law. Political humor is not. You are seriously off base.

Just relax and enjoy the show. The political humor mixed with facts and intelligence is serious fun, about the only thing to relieve the outrage about what Trump and the GOP are doing. It is seriously destructive and malevolent. When held to the light, ridicule of the ridiculous is the only viable result.

[Bob Butler 54]

I’m into role playing games.  A while ago, I was part of an online role play group that specialized in Star Trek.  I was trying for a fairly sophisticated android character, with some strengths, but she did not handle racism and sexual harassment well.  Shouldn’t have been a problem, as there were rules against that sort of thing.  If one is trying to run a nice friendly Federation space ship, you don’t do that.

Except they did.  Some got the idea that if they were Klingon, it was OK to be violent, a Ferengi, it was OK and even funny to be racist and sexist.  It was like in the old days, when an actor put on black face makeup, it was OK to exploit racism to the max.  Ferengi makeup became the equivalent.  You could be as uncivil and un-Federation as one wants.

Somehow, the Ferengi player got to decide if interactions were fun and in good spirits or not.  Of course, to the oppressor, it is all in good fun.  To the person being dumped on, not so.

Your line, ‘Just relax and enjoy the show” reminds me of that attitude, that dumping on people is so much fun.  It also reminds me of the line allegedly used by rapists to their sexual ‘partners’.

There are two perpendicular problems in modern US culture.  People don’t agree on the fixes to a lot of political and economic problems.  People are also busy alienating each other as to not communicate.  I’m often more worried about the second problem than the first.  You can’t get real about the true problems if you’re having too much fun alienating the other guys.  

It is clear you are so for into the blue that you don’t understand or care significantly about the discord you are sowing.  It’s like you are wearing Ferengi make up, the rules of civility don’t apply to you.  Civility isn’t part of your values.  And, yes, by today’s culture’s standards, it often isn’t.  It seems like every cultural subgroup creates some convoluted rules that it’s OK to dump on other folks, but no one is allowed to dumps on them.

Not that you’re the worst actor.  We have posters who switch into all out expletive insults at the first sign of significant opposition.  You may be among the worst blue.  If I go after a red with intensity, It would be shrugged off as partisanship as usual.

But while you are dumping on others, expect to be dumped on.  Hey, you are a long time contributor.  You should have figured that much out by now.

Though we have discussed the point to a stalemate comparable to our gun policy differences.  I’m not sure that another time around the block will be useful.

[gabrielle]

(06-30-2017, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote: A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'

BLM responds to the NRA ad with their own

[Warren Dew]

(07-08-2017, 09:21 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(06-30-2017, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote: A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'

BLM responds to the NRA ad with their own

She shouldn't have wimped out in the middle.  The NRA welcomes people of all races.  But hey, she doesn't actually care about black people; she just cares about Democrats.

[Warren Dew]

(07-07-2017, 09:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 10:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: When the left gets a win, they push further.  They got gay marriage, so now they're pushing to force people to participate and be supportive of gay marriage ceremonies even if that's against those people's religious beliefs.  They'll be pushing to force churches to perform the ceremonies next.

Truth be told, one can refuse to attend any marriage ceremony for any reason. The State cannot compel people to attend interfaith or interracial marriages, so if someone does not want to witness his pretty white daughter marrying some black man, one can avoid attending the marriage even if being unable to stop it.  I know of a preacher who will not perform a marriage between people who have cohabitated for at least a year of living separately. That is his standard. Churches can refuse to become venues for marriages of which they disapprove. I doubt that anyone expects Westboro Baptist Church to perform a same-sex marriage or the Church of Adolf Hitler to perform a marriage between an 'Aryan' and an 'Untermensch'. Were I a preacher I would refuse to participate in a marriage that looks exploitative or potentially destructive. Marriage between two people with a wide disparity of age creeps me out and suggests the potential for an exploitative relationship, and for practical reasons I would refuse to officiate a wedding involving two people who do not even speak the same language or a couple that has already had violence in their relationship.

So go to a civil authority which cannot discriminate against a marriage between someone 70 and someone 16 or shop around for clergy who will go along.  Oh, Warren Jeffs is no longer available?

You might wish that were the truth, but the State of Washington says otherwise.  The judgment in the Arlene's Flowers case says, "All goods, merchandise and services offered or sold to opposite sex couples shall be offered or sold on the same terms to same-sex couples, including but not limited to goods, merchandise and services for weddings and commitment ceremonies."  Since a florist usually delivers the flowers and often stays at the ceremony to take care of them, she is being forced to attend the ceremony.  The case obviously applies to photographers and caterers, who attend the ceremony and provide services.  Read it yourself here if you wish:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlo...mentAG.pdf

Quote:

Quote:The NRA didn't do that.  They fought for the right to own firearms, successfully, but they didn't follow that up by aggressively pursuing concealed carry and open carry.  As a result, they lost the support of the militia movement folks for being allegedly insufficiently supportive of the second amendment.

...any cause that sees the need for support from the 'militia movement' has a problem.

This might surprise you, but NRA leadership might as well see the election of Donald Trump as overwhelming evidence that liberals would be wise to not sacrifice 'gun rights' should they need guns with which to defend against right-wing extremists. (OK, if one wanted to treat 'gun rights' like other rights in the Constitution  one might as well rewrite the Second Amendment to include at the least a non-discrimination clause as do those Amendments involving voting rights, due process, and citizenship.

Quote:This video appears to me to be an attempt to get those people back on board with the NRA.

The NRA needs to become more mainstream if it is to have credibility.

Why would that surprise me?  If the left as well as the right comes on board with second amendment rights, all to the better.

Nondiscrimination already applies to the entire bill of rights by virtue of the Privileges Or Immunities Clause.

Credibility doesn't help the NRA if they lose their membership.

[gabrielle]

(07-09-2017, 03:27 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-08-2017, 09:21 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(06-30-2017, 08:01 AM)Odin Wrote: A chilling National Rifle Association ad gaining traction online appears to be 'an open call to violence'

BLM responds to the NRA ad with their own

She shouldn't have wimped out in the middle.  The NRA welcomes people of all races.  But hey, she doesn't actually care about black people; she just cares about Democrats.

You mean like how the NRA doesn't really care about gun rights, they only care about white Republicans?  I mean, what does media political bias and the Berkeley and BLM protests have to do with gun rights?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-09-2017, 04:46 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-07-2017, 09:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 10:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: When the left gets a win, they push further.  They got gay marriage, so now they're pushing to force people to participate and be supportive of gay marriage ceremonies even if that's against those people's religious beliefs.  They'll be pushing to force churches to perform the ceremonies next.

Truth be told, one can refuse to attend any marriage ceremony for any reason. The State cannot compel people to attend interfaith or interracial marriages, so if someone does not want to witness his pretty white daughter marrying some black man, one can avoid attending the marriage even if being unable to stop it.  I know of a preacher who will not perform a marriage between people who have cohabitated for at least a year of living separately. That is his standard. Churches can refuse to become venues for marriages of which they disapprove. I doubt that anyone expects Westboro Baptist Church to perform a same-sex marriage or the Church of Adolf Hitler to perform a marriage between an 'Aryan' and an 'Untermensch'. Were I a preacher I would refuse to participate in a marriage that looks exploitative or potentially destructive. Marriage between two people with a wide disparity of age creeps me out and suggests the potential for an exploitative relationship, and for practical reasons I would refuse to officiate a wedding involving two people who do not even speak the same language or a couple that has already had violence in their relationship.

So go to a civil authority which cannot discriminate against a marriage between someone 70 and someone 16 or shop around for clergy who will go along.  Oh, Warren Jeffs is no longer available?

You might wish that were the truth, but the State of Washington says otherwise.  The judgment in the Arlene's Flowers case says, "All goods, merchandise and services offered or sold to opposite sex couples shall be offered or sold on the same terms to same-sex couples, including but not limited to goods, merchandise and services for weddings and commitment ceremonies."  Since a florist usually delivers the flowers and often stays at the ceremony to take care of them, she is being forced to attend the ceremony.  The case obviously applies to photographers and caterers, who attend the ceremony and provide services.  Read it yourself here if you wish:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlo...mentAG.pdf

You might also want to check out the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a response to that Woolworth's lunch counter, among other things.  The act isn't an easy read, but the gist of it is that if you are providing goods or services to the public, you can't discriminate in providing said goods and services.  As time passes, as more forms of discrimination are recognized, they all come to share that same legal litmus test.

Now, in the case of the father of the white girl who is marrying a black guy, unless the father provides wedding goods or services, he can avoid the ceremony.  If he makes money providing wedding services to the public, he may have a problem if the daughter wants to make a scene.

Now, any preacher might declare most anything to be a sin.  If he declares providing a good or service a sin, he might run square into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Thus far, the courts have been with the Congress.  I don't blame the courts not wanting to get into the business of deciding whether an act is one of commerce, or of worship.  I don't think they want to have to decide whether he who declares the act a sin is performing a legitimate act of faith, practicing bigotry, or both.  No doubt the photography, catering and whatnot are acts of commerce, and that's generally how the courts are treating them.

Warren's claim that "They'll be pushing to force churches to perform the ceremonies next" seems like a conservative straw man. I haven't heard of this either being done or being pushed for. Banning discrimination, yes. Forcing clergymen to perform services? That is news to me.

[pbrower2a]

I have seen plenty of signs that say "No shirt/no shoes/no service"... All establishments have the right to oust troublemakers, which explains why bars have bouncers. It is reasonable to expect that a gas station would reasonably refuse to supply gasoline for jerrycans to complete strangers when a civil disorder is going on. Tough luck if you need the gas for your lawn mower unless  you are a regular and you are in the lawn-mowing business, in which case I might make an exception.  

It's clear that providing a cake for a same-sex, interfaith, or interracial wedding is not in itself an endorsement of the wedding. Maybe if I owned a bakery I might have a helper who refuses to complete the cake for a same-sex wedding due to religious convictions. So I would have the helper do as much of the cake as does not offend the helper's sensibilities and I would squeeze the names "Linda and Louise" or "Paul and Pete" onto the cake and affix the statuette of a same-sex couple.

But this goes to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Obergfell vs. Hedges. The narrowest ruling is that one cannot discriminate against same-sex couples as such.  Were I a bakery-owner I would have no problem with providing the cake. I would probably be expected to comply with a USSC ruling on non-discrimination. But some things are not corollaries of the ruling. Freedom of speech includes the right to remain silent as well as to say what might be objectionable to others.

So what is beyond the scope of the ruling?

1. A cake that advocates violent deeds. "Hang the Governor!" would fit into that category, even if I loathe the Governor.

2. Indecency. The cake for "Linda and Louise" or "Paul and Pete" had better not depict a sex act. That's the same for "Pete and Linda", too. No filthy language, either.

3. Threats. A bookie who asks me to make a cake shaped like a tombstone that tells someone to "Pay Up or Sleep With the Fishies" as a threat to someone owing a gambling debt would get an obvious refusal.

4. Something advocating or promoting an exploitative relationship, as with pedophila. Enough said.

5. Emblems of extremism, including swastikas, hammers-and-sickles, KKK stuff, etc., and inflammatory slogans. Democratic and Republican symbols do not qualify as extremism -- yet.

6. Something requiring a license for which I have no license. If I do not have the license to put Disney characters on your kid's birthday cake, then I will not put Donald Duck on your birthday cake. If I have the license to put Warner Brothers' cartoon characters on your kid's birthday cake, I might suggest "Daffy" instead. I have no obligation to put myself at risk for a lawsuit for a trademark or copyright violation.

7. Use your imagination for other circumstances.

The courts typically rule narrowly.

[Eric the Green]

(07-08-2017, 07:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I’m into role playing games.  A while ago, I was part of an online role play group that specialized in Star Trek.  I was trying for a fairly sophisticated android character, with some strengths, but she did not handle racism and sexual harassment well.  Shouldn’t have been a problem, as there were rules against that sort of thing.  If one is trying to run a nice friendly Federation space ship, you don’t do that.

Except they did.  Some got the idea that if they were Klingon, it was OK to be violent, a Ferengi, it was OK and even funny to be racist and sexist.  It was like in the old days, when an actor put on black face makeup, it was OK to exploit racism to the max.  Ferengi makeup became the equivalent.  You could be as uncivil and un-Federation as one wants.

Somehow, the Ferengi player got to decide if interactions were fun and in good spirits or not.  Of course, to the oppressor, it is all in good fun.  To the person being dumped on, not so.

Your line, ‘Just relax and enjoy the show” reminds me of that attitude, that dumping on people is so much fun.  It also reminds me of the line allegedly used by rapists to their sexual ‘partners’.

There are two perpendicular problems in modern US culture.  People don’t agree on the fixes to a lot of political and economic problems.  People are also busy alienating each other as to not communicate.  I’m often more worried about the second problem than the first.  You can’t get real about the true problems if you’re having too much fun alienating the other guys.  

It is clear you are so far into the blue that you don’t understand or care significantly about the discord you are sowing.  It’s like you are wearing Ferengi make up, the rules of civility don’t apply to you.  Civility isn’t part of your values.  And, yes, by today’s culture’s standards, it often isn’t.  It seems like every cultural subgroup creates some convoluted rules that it’s OK to dump on other folks, but no one is allowed to dumps on them.

Not that you’re the worst actor.  We have posters who switch into all out expletive insults at the first sign of significant opposition.  You may be among the worst blue.  If I go after a red with intensity, It would be shrugged off as partisanship as usual.

But while you are dumping on others, expect to be dumped on.  Hey, you are a long time contributor.  You should have figured that much out by now.

Though we have discussed the point to a stalemate comparable to our gun policy differences.  I’m not sure that another time around the block will be useful.

Not sure at all.

Dumping on other posters here personally is usually not what I do. I express my opinions. And political humor and sarcasm about our national politics is respectable and honorable. And the blue side has the preponderance of truth, such that I can read an obviously liberal/blue oriented site like the one I quoted, and know that it is, and still discern the fact that they are reporting (in this case, in how some people on the Republican side reacted to a post of the Declaration of Independence on NPR). The facts can be accepted, or verified. The spin can be accounted for. People can do the same on a red-oriented site. There is likely to be far fewer facts to discern there, however.

I can't do any more to alienate the other side than they are already alienated. They are already alienated, and do not wish to learn the truth or the facts. I pointed this out before. Around the block we go. They are not the audience, probably, for political humor on the blue side. They likely are not watching Mr. Oliver, or Mr. Meyers, or Mr. Colbert, and certainly not Mr. Maher. The audience for them is there, however, including a few who may be open to learning the truth. And the truth needs to be put out there, without the delusion that there's equal truth on both sides. THAT is just "not true." There's more truth on the blue side. And more open-mindedness too, however ironic a statement that may be coming from me.

I'm all for attempts at respectful and civil communication. This can only happen with people who are open to it, especially those who are in the stage of life where strong values and values-memes are still forming, or who have come to understand that the old ideologies have failed.

I took one of those little questionnaires on line, and I came out "open minded" for what it's worth.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-10-2017, 11:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm all for attempts at respectful and civil communication. This can only happen with people who are open to it, especially those who are in the stage of life where strong values and values-memes are still forming, or who have come to understand that the old ideologies have failed.

I’ve found that going for respectful and civil communication isn’t all that hard.  First, you have to try to be respectful and civil one’s self.  Can’t do that when you’re spamming stuff ridiculing their world view.  I also at least try to find and acknowledge the real points that are being presented by their world view, while rejecting their straw men, their attempts to falsely project how blue people supposedly think.  (This should not imply that blue folk lack straw men.)

One of their points is that the red world view is being persistently attacked by the coastal media.  I hope I’ve demonstrated my opinion that they do have legitimate complaints, that some blues can begin to listen.

[Eric the Green]

(07-10-2017, 01:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-10-2017, 11:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm all for attempts at respectful and civil communication. This can only happen with people who are open to it, especially those who are in the stage of life where strong values and values-memes are still forming, or who have come to understand that the old ideologies have failed.

I’ve found that going for respectful and civil communication isn’t all that hard.  First, you have to try to be respectful and civil one’s self.  Can’t do that when you’re spamming stuff ridiculing their world view.  I also at least try to find and acknowledge the real points that are being presented by their world view, while rejecting their straw men, their attempts to falsely project how blue people supposedly think.  (This should not imply that blue folk lack straw men.)

One of their points is that the red world view is being persistently attacked by the coastal media.  I hope I’ve demonstrated my opinion that they do have legitimate complaints, that some blues can begin to listen.

The problem in your case is that your posts are not civil, yet you lecture people on civility.

Old world views that do not serve humanity, need to be exposed as false. Is there a way to do that in a civil way, by some people (if not necessarily by me)?

It still takes willingness to listen. Otherwise, it will not penetrate, whether the message is delivered politely or not.

[Bob Butler 54]

I've found you can get some red folk in a civil conversation, but when civil conversation doesn't work, I do sometimes push. With you, or I guess anyone who will not listen, I sometimes have to push. As for finding a way to merge worldviews, to take the strength of both paths while purging the rigidity and dysfunction, we'll see.

[Eric the Green]

It lessens frustration to give up trying to convince someone who will not listen. For example, I will not listen to appeals to the supposed sanity and rationality of the NRA bosses. So, might as well move on to something I might listen to, or at least read. So it is with red folk and what goes against their ideologies.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-10-2017, 11:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It lessens frustration to give up trying to convince someone who will not listen. For example, I will not listen to appeals to the supposed sanity and rationality of the NRA bosses. So, might as well move on to something I might listen to, or at least read. So it is with red folk and what goes against their ideologies.

Sometimes I go with the secondary objective, which is just to illustrate how extreme partisans will sometimes not listen to anything that conflicts with their world view.  You make a wonderful illustration, and at least will admit it at times.  Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.  Getting other extreme partisans to watch their own commitment to the extremes isn't easy, but they might hopefully begin to wonder.

[Eric the Green]

(07-14-2017, 12:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-10-2017, 11:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It lessens frustration to give up trying to convince someone who will not listen. For example, I will not listen to appeals to the supposed sanity and rationality of the NRA bosses. So, might as well move on to something I might listen to, or at least read. So it is with red folk and what goes against their ideologies.

Sometimes I go with the secondary objective, which is just to illustrate how extreme partisans will sometimes not listen to anything that conflicts with their world view.  You make a wonderful illustration, and at least will admit it at times.  Many a partisan would rather go into insult or silence mode than admit their perspective flawed.  Getting other extreme partisans to watch their own commitment to the extremes isn't easy, but they might hopefully begin to wonder.

At times....??? But... my perspective probably isn't flawed! It's been considerable thought and years in the making, after all. Not perfect though; always more to learn. World views though, are more set than new information. I listen enough to all sides, political, philosophical, religious, to know what the world views are in our world; that is my business to know them.

"Extreme partisan," again, is likely not a bad thing in a society that is tilted so far in one, very-harmful direction that every thoughtful person opposes. And again, not necessarily a bad thing, given that "partisan" is the wrong word anyway for many "extreme partisans." My views, for example, have nothing to do with honing and clinging to a party line. I made that point before. I diverge from that when warranted, and stay with it when warranted. My views are based on reality, and on hope for the best.

It's a practical, political need today, to support Democrats, and particularly progressive Democrats, for the sake of the country, despite the fact that Democratic politicians too are frequently less than ideal or adequate for various reasons, as the case may be. The need now, in this 4T era, is for the progressive Democratic side to win. Not for reconciliation or compromise. The only "compromise" possible with the right wing today, would itself be too far to the right. And things are not going well in this fight.

And I admit that, and have even predicted that, in a fluid 4T situation like ours, what may emerge is an entirely new party system.

But if I were a politician, I would do my best to work out the best possible legislation, even if this might involve some compromise. And sometimes, at least, I support politicians who can do this. I think it's possible, if ideologies and fixed ideas are less tightly clung to. Usually though, this compromise happens today in less-critically important fields where both sides can agree, like veterans affairs. In economic/fiscal and social-cultural issues today, willingness to seek real common ground is often absent. Instead what we hear is, "your policies are harmful," vs. "we share the same goal, we just have a different way to get there" (meaning, NO way to get there).

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: At times....??? But... my perspective probably isn't flawed!

A while ago you were boasting of your ability to listen, but you're reverted into your native "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me must be defeated" mode.  I for one would appreciate an attempt at actually listening.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2017, 05:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: I hope he is joking.

Is the right to hope a positive or a negative right?  Does it equate to wishful thinking?  Do I need a lengthy essay on the nature of extreme partisanship and the inability to consider that one might possibly be wrong?

The comparison to Trump's ego and certainty is...  interesting.

[Eric the Green]

My perspective is flawed! What a thing to try to get someone to admit. Too funny.

If all you got, is to uphold the NRA?

We all do the best we can, I guess, to see things right.

But Taramarie? She is always wrong!

Again, I invite the two of you to go start a forum in which you discuss each other's behavior and egos.

Not interested, myself, in such a boring topic. But, with Taramarie, what can you expect?

No, I cut her no slack at all. She is on my ignore list permanently.