General politics

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

I'm saying that Democrats becoming indignant when people hold them to the actual meaning of their most strident voices' all-encompassing rallying cry is a pretty bad look for the party.

 

But if you want to argue that Democrats have already succeeded in diluting "socialism" to mean capitalism with MFA, for example, then you're also arguing that Americans who overwhelmingly disapprove of "socialism" in recent polling are in fact already disapproving of the lesser 'socialism lite' version of socialism implied by our existing government incorporating more traits of social democracy, like MFA.

 

And in any case there is no accepted formal definition of socialism that does not include a planned economy and other implications that are a non-starter for the vast majority of Americans.

Typically when we are looking to define terms of philosophy, social structure, economic theory, the dictionary isn't the best place to look, because these concepts are mutable and change in usage and conception over time.  Again, take my example of the term "conservative" or "liberal" etc. 

 

Clearly, Democrats need to reframe what socialism means to Americans, but I don't think most Americans' dislike of socialism has much to do with the dictionary definition as much as it does with cold-war scare tactics. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

Pseudo mentioned vocational education in a much earlier post and I missed the chance to tip my cap to him for bringing up an often overlooked component of the college discussion.

 

Many other nations have less of a hangup about making college/no college a binary equivalent of 'successful'/'not successful', and are better off for it. That false equivalence is still a hinderance to vocational education in the U.S. 

 

Germany is an excellent example, as over a third of their graduating secondary students immediately enter some form of government-sponsored vocational education or apprenticeships.

 

And as Levi pointed out... Ask for a half dozen person-on-the-street opinions in Western Europe about whether 'Nordic socialism' or whatever will work in the U.S., and odds are that you will hear at least one or two answers that will range from a polite mention of demographics to polite 'white nationalist' racism.

Agreed.  We may not agree on this, but I do think publicly funded education would have the byproduct of making vocational schools a viable option, and allow universities to be more choosey over admissions because they won't be chasing those endless federally-borrowed dollars.

 

I do think, as you and Levi seem to point out, that our diverse makeup, esp. given the demographic make-up of the poor, we might see too many minorities be pushed towards vocation and too many whites get into universities perpetuating the same class distinctions. 

[ewen21]

 

You're projecting the all or nothing proposition into that definition.  Advocating for socialistic healthcare, doesn't mean anyone seeks to socialize the production of hamburgers. 

 

Allow groups to define themselves.  If you're referring to the dictionary as the basis to demonstrate what people believe, your argument is very poor indeed.  

 

I wonder what the dictionary definition of "conservative" is? Actually, I don't care at all, because it's irrelevant to what self-identified conservatives actually believe.

I don't know what to tell you.  Write a letter to nothing.

 

By the definition of socialism there are no actual Socialist nations.  There are only nations that have socialist characteristics.  That is all.

[LaBombo]

 

Typically when we are looking to define terms of philosophy, social structure, economic theory, the dictionary isn't the best place to look, because these concepts are mutable and change in usage and conception over time.  Again, take my example of the term "conservative" or "liberal" etc. 

 

Clearly, Democrats need to reframe what socialism means to Americans, but I don't think most Americans' dislike of socialism has much to do with the dictionary definition as much as it does with cold-war scare tactics. 

 

Not trying to drag the discussion down with semantics. And I completely agree that there's no point in getting wrapped around the axle over more general philosophical terms like conservative/liberal.

 

But real socialism encompasses some profound distinctions from the social democracy/'Nordic model' pool of examples that Democrats frequently cite. Conflating the two serves no purpose other than linguist expediency.

 

If Democrats want a catchy, marketable name for a major expansion of entitlements/etc. and they stick with "socialism", they're going to be stuck with the ramifications of both the dictionary definition and the truckload of baggage (both deserved and not), that come with the word. That alone makes me hope they can set aside the word in favor of something else a little less convenient and a lot more accurate.

 

Or they can stick with "Socialism", hope that the word will not be used as a 2020 campaign cudgel by President Nuance, and see where that takes them.

[Craig Arko]

Should someone feel so disposed to actually look up philosophical terms, this is probably the best place to begin.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu

[TheLeviathan]

 

I do think, as you and Levi seem to point out, that our diverse makeup, esp. given the demographic make-up of the poor, we might see too many minorities be pushed towards vocation and too many whites get into universities perpetuating the same class distinctions. 

 

That is one problem, another problem is that people will not like the idea that their son or daughter is told they are not college material.  Talk about a branding win....colleges have won the national conversation on the value of college to such a degree we view it as "essential".

 

When, in reality, most careers could be done through vocational training or something much more akin to college-lite.  I agree that minorities will probably get burned by such a system here, but I can't imagine the parents of many white kids will be particularly happy when the school basically tells them Johnny or Sally isn't smart enough for college.  

 

I think the answer lies along the lines of making 2 year, community, and vocational colleges free and make money available for actual college to a much narrower group of people with the skills and need.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

That is one problem, another problem is that people will not like the idea that their son or daughter is told they are not college material.  Talk about a branding win....colleges have won the national conversation on the value of college to such a degree we view it as "essential".

 

When, in reality, most careers could be done through vocational training or something much more akin to college-lite.  I agree that minorities will probably get burned by such a system here, but I can't imagine the parents of many white kids will be particularly happy when the school basically tells them Johnny or Sally isn't smart enough for college.  

 

I think the answer lies along the lines of making 2 year, community, and vocational colleges free and make money available for actual college to a much narrower group of people with the skills and need.  

That's a matter of messaging too.  How vocational careers, which can pay better and have more employment opportunities than many careers needing a bachelors, became something to ashamed of, I don't quite understand.  There's oddly both an anti-intellectual branch of American thinking, and an anti-vocational branch. 

 

I think parents would feel the punch of my baby not being college material less if high schools had better vocational tracks...I imagine a system would emerge where if such parents wanted their kids to go to college in spite of their grades, they can take the risk and put their own money on the line...in any case, the private institutions can still admit whomever they'd like.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

Not trying to drag the discussion down with semantics. And I completely agree that there's no point in getting wrapped around the axle over more general philosophical terms like conservative/liberal.

 

But real socialism encompasses some profound distinctions from the social democracy/'Nordic model' pool of examples that Democrats frequently cite. Conflating the two serves no purpose other than linguist expediency.

 

If Democrats want a catchy, marketable name for a major expansion of entitlements/etc. and they stick with "socialism", they're going to be stuck with the ramifications of both the dictionary definition and the truckload of baggage (both deserved and not), that come with the word. That alone makes me hope they can set aside the word in favor of something else a little less convenient and a lot more accurate.

 

Or they can stick with "Socialism", hope that the word will not be used as a 2020 campaign cudgel by President Nuance, and see where that takes them.

I think there is space to distinguish American socialism as distinct from its Marxist, Communist counterparts.  I'm not sure there's enough distinction there that the Democrats could bet on it, but in terms of usage "socialism" seems to be closer to Western and Northern Europe hybrids, than what's been going on in Russia or China or even Venezuela. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

I don't know what to tell you.  Write a letter to nothing.

 

By the definition of socialism there are no actual Socialist nations.  There are only nations that have socialist characteristics.  That is all.

What do you call a person who believes in mere "socialist characteristics" and not whole scale "socialism"? Why can't these people self-identify as Democratic socialists without offending the dictionary?  I think they can.  Whether it's a good idea, is something else entirely.

[Champuckett]

 

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here?

 

Yes, there is.  But there is everywhere to be fair right now both inside and outside of this website.  I would pinpoint it more directly to a bias of using the same mainstream media sources, rather than anti-Trump.  Trump is just the guy we are all currently being told we need to despise and hate, so that's the collective response you are seeing.

 

I tried to point this out roughly 2 years ago in this thread or another similar one and was unfortunately met with the same type of response as you are getting here.  I'm not pro or anti Trump, pro-Republican or pro-Democrat, yet it is easy to see the same narrative is being followed both then and now.

 

I think I offered it before, and I will happily offer it again if i I failed to do the first time around.  I am happy to discuss any of these current issues regarding politics with anyone here in an open and honest way through private messages on an individual level, but trying to put any opinion that does not have an anti-Trump or anti-conservative stance is met with an intense amount of resistance.  It feels like a waste of time unless you are part of the pre-approved opinions of the group.  I wish we could have more open discussions about these topics and not let it divulge into negativity, sarcasm, or the piling on effect that is currently happening every time someone tries to put an opinion out there that goes against the grain.

 

I know many of us are reasonable people and I think there are many that do want to have fruitful discussions even when there are largely divergent opinions occurring.  I think someone once said we need better communication and understanding with one another when talking about these dear to the heart issues, so that's a good sign in my estimation.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's a matter of messaging too.  How vocational careers, which can pay better and have more employment opportunities than many careers needing a bachelors, became something to ashamed of, I don't quite understand.  There's oddly both an anti-intellectual branch of American thinking, and an anti-vocational branch. 

 

I think parents would feel the punch of my baby not being college material less if high schools had better vocational tracks...I imagine a system would emerge where if such parents wanted their kids to go to college in spite of their grades, they can take the risk and put their own money on the line...in any case, the private institutions can still admit whomever they'd like.

 

I'm skeptical of bridging that gap.  As you say, "vocational" is an ugly word and yet it shouldn't be at all.  I think that's how deep the "you have to go to college!" branding has embedded itself in our culture.  That's going to be a hard one to break especially since it almost requires an attack on what we call college today.  The right is all too happy to do that (for the wrong reasons) but the left will be reticent to do that.  (For some better reasons, but nevertheless problematic)

 

I think I said it earlier, we almost need to force a hard break on what we know of as college today and pick up the pieces in more reasonable way.  But, I'm even skeptical of that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I know many of us are reasonable people and I think there are many that do want to have fruitful discussions even when there are largely divergent opinions occurring.  I think someone once said we need better communication and understanding with one another when talking about these dear to the heart issues, so that's a good sign in my estimation.

 

Before I ask this question, I'll preface it with this: I question the reasoning behind a number of left-wing positions.  This forum is full of evidence for that.  (I'm just equal opportunity is all)

 

However, can you give an example of a Republican position or stance you're sympathetic to?  One that you think would be unwelcome for discussion here?

[MMMordabito]

So, it looks like this whole violation of the Constitution with the emergency declaration is likely in the hands of John Roberts. I hope he makes the right decision. I'm all for border protection, even though I think we need to streamline the immigration process, but precedent cannot be set for giving this avenue of bypassing checks and balances.

 

I'm not in the immoral camp on the wall, but I just think it's going to be a massive, ineffective waste.

 

This declaration cannot be allowed though.

[ewen21]

 

 

However, can you give an example of a Republican position or stance you're sympathetic to?  One that you think would be unwelcome for discussion here?

Why don't you PM him like he asked?  Seems to me he just wanted to make a statement and didn't want to get into any kind of back and forth in front of an audience.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Why don't you PM him like he asked?  Seems to me he just wanted to make a statement and didn't want to get into any kind of back and forth in front of an audience.  

 

This is a forum for discussion.  If he'd like to PM people he can certainly do that, but the paragraph I quoted showed an interest, but reluctance to engage.  

 

If champ chooses not to answer my question, that's ok.  I just offered the invite he felt was not open, it's up to him to take it or not.  I would hope anyone who takes the time to post here will realize that people will respond to them here.  If they would prefer for that not to happen, posting here makes very little sense.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

So, it looks like this whole violation of the Constitution with the emergency declaration is likely in the hands of John Roberts. I hope he makes the right decision. I'm all for border protection, even though I think we need to streamline the immigration process, but precedent cannot be set for giving this avenue of bypassing checks and balances.

I'm not in the immoral camp on the wall, but I just think it's going to be a massive, ineffective waste.

This declaration cannot be allowed though.

 

It's disappointing to me that the party of strict constitutionalism thinks this is ok.  But it would bother me even more if the judges that party put there to be strict constitutionalists would allow it to happen.

 

At that point, any chance the Republicans can unburn the bridge to my vote might be gone.

[biggentleben]

 

So, it looks like this whole violation of the Constitution with the emergency declaration is likely in the hands of John Roberts. I hope he makes the right decision. I'm all for border protection, even though I think we need to streamline the immigration process, but precedent cannot be set for giving this avenue of bypassing checks and balances.

I'm not in the immoral camp on the wall, but I just think it's going to be a massive, ineffective waste.

This declaration cannot be allowed though.

 

I've not done it in probably 10-15 years, but I wrote my congressperson to thank them for a move made this week when new Republican Representative from South Dakota voted against the emergency declaration. Good to see show of individual thought and action. He's being lambasted by locals, which is just rich, but I'm glad to see him do it.

[Champuckett]

Before I ask this question, I'll preface it with this: I question the reasoning behind a number of left-wing positions.  This forum is full of evidence for that.  (I'm just equal opportunity is all)

 

However, can you give an example of a Republican position or stance you're sympathetic to?  One that you think would be unwelcome for discussion here?

 

Thanks for response.  I'm sympathetic to many points from both political sides, but what I think doesn't really matter.  I can talk about anything you want in private messages if that is what your sincere curiosity is, but putting what I, or anyone else says if it goes against the narrative, is unlikely to result in making people take a step back to think about what was said, instead of reacting to what was said.  We are all doing this now, reacting, and no longer thinking, contemplating.  Doesn't matter what your opinion is, what side you stand on.  If a Republican or a conservative, or any other political ideology you can think of beyond liberal/progressive says something here, the default position will be to oppose it, and that position will be rallied behind.  This occurs on conservative news sites as well.  We have 69 pages here in this thread and more than 200 pages in the Trump thread alone reaffirming there is only one acceptable narrative here, lest you be attacked by multiple people directly or more often indirectly for being uninformed, unenlightened, unprincipled, or not privy to the obvious certain correct point of view.   Some of these attacks are respectful and courteous, and are not name calling or being cruel in nature at all.  They are simply assuming that there is only one way to think, and coming from that angle when responding to people putting alternative opinions out there. This doesn't mean anyone is a bad person, this doesn't mean anyone here has an agenda of suffocating thought or discussion, this doesn't mean that people can't attempt to put these alternative opinions out there.  It just means that a strong majority having domination over a minuscule minority is how things work, and I haven't seen that many people attempt to push back in any meaningful way against that narrative until a few days ago.  And if that happens again, and I don't say anything, or no one else says anything, then the order of things continues on as it has been.

 

The person or person(s) with non-narrative following opinion will see the standard response and feel a lack of interest in participating further.  If this was a left leaning political board that would make complete sense, and maybe many with differing opinions would stray away, but it's a board based off a sports franchise, so you might figure there would be more political ideologies represented here, but instead you do not.  You only get one.  And this is true across 90%, maybe more, of the internet.  There's no conspiracy here, the majority opinion has been allowed to thrive and has been enriched while any dissenting or alternative opinions have been starved and ostracized out of discussions.  This isn't about TD, it's about the state of discourse.  I'm not sure this is what we all signed up for, but this is certainly what has happened, regardless of intent.

 

Right now, it is popular and safe, not brave, to attack any of these non liberal/progressive ideas, regardless of what they are.  And it would be great if those that, even when they disagree, would stand up for people with minority opinions, no matter how controversial they are.  Instead the opposite effect is happening, where people are becoming more afraid to share minority opinions, because the dog pile is becoming more intense and growing in number.  Of course, the conclusions from the people that believe with the rest of the collective might say to themselves, "well obviously, these are the opinions that are popular right now"  or "we are just preaching common sense here".  So we have justification for the situation by many individuals, and it continues to grow, and minority opinions continue to fold.

 

What I am willing to speak about here, is what has happened with our media, what has happened with our discussions, our communities.  Before we can even attempt to speak about our personal beliefs again in meaningful ways, I think we first have to address how difficult it is to have basic conversations anymore, before we can even begin to consider throwing out strong or even mild political opinions.  If we fail to agree that there is a fundamental problem with this, well, then that's that.

 

I'll say it again, but there was someone earlier in the thread that said we need to have more empathy and understanding, might have been Mike Sixel, don't know it was a while ago.  That was a great insight and that person is right.  I would love to see that occur here or elsewhere on other message boards at some point, but what I'm seeing is we appear to be going in the exact opposite direction from this trajectory and solidifying our grasp on the majority opinion having power until complete total power is obtained and unless we stop in our tracks and examine what is happening, it's going to continue in this direction.

[MMMordabito]

 

I've not done it in probably 10-15 years, but I wrote my congressperson to thank them for a move made this week when new Republican Representative from South Dakota voted against the emergency declaration. Good to see show of individual thought and action. He's being lambasted by locals, which is just rich, but I'm glad to see him do it.

 

That's good leadership.  I knew Dean Phillips would vote yes.  I was also happy to see Justin Amash voted to block Trump on this as well.  He's not my rep, but I definitely agree with a lot of his positions (not all of them, but a lot).

[Badsmerf]

Champ, I'm discouraged you feel that way about our discussions. I wholeheartedly disagree that the common posters operate in that manner. There have been many discussions with differing viewpoints and civil arguments. I think you'd find many of us sympathetic to select conservatives policies. Many were, and still are, fans of John Kasich. There are not many Trump fans, but we have given him a tip of the cap when deserved.

 

That said, any argument is met with the expectation of supporting facts. Doesn't really matter what side you're arguing from. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong, sometimes it is subjective and can be interpreted multiple ways. A well reasoned opposing opinion can help educate everyone on a topic, if not change a few minds. I think you'd find your voice welcomed in any discussion. Like machine gun Kelly says, let's talk about it.

[NumberThree]

Discussing politics on the internet with random strangers isn’t always ideal and I can understand well the reticence, especially since some of you seem to know one another. This is an interesting article a friend had me read recently. It goes well with some of the discussion here of late.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/watertown-new-york-tops-scale-political-tolerance/582106/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-fb-test-826-2-&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1FYyJQQBy8hjuh88LwrJoGSYg0MNC8uOF2bATd5JP5iBgjHoPsowukd8E

[LaBombo]

 

 I wholeheartedly disagree that the common posters operate in that manner. There have been many discussions with differing viewpoints and civil arguments. I think you'd find many of us sympathetic to select conservatives policies.

 

I still find these admirable sentiments that you express above and your self-identification as a moderate very difficult to reconcile with your previous insistence that all Republicans are Nazis. Have you changed your mind about that equivalence (which is offensive on multiple levels), or do you still not see a conflict between those views?

[Badsmerf]

I still find these admirable sentiments that you express above and your self-identification as a moderate very difficult to reconcile with your previous insistence that all Republicans are Nazis. Have you changed your mind about that equivalence (which is offensive on multiple levels), or do you still not see a conflict between those views?

Of course all republicans aren't Nazis. Some are, and feel comfortable in the party. That wasn't the case 15 years ago, when I was about to vote for W. I would have a problem self identifying politically with groups that identify as Republican. If there was widespread disavowing that would be one thing, but there isn't. That's a problem, and why I don't support them anymore.

[ewen21]

 

Of course all republicans aren't Nazis. Some are, and feel comfortable in the party. That wasn't the case 15 years ago, when I was about to vote for W. I would have a problem self identifying politically with groups that identify as Republican. If there was widespread disavowing that would be one thing, but there isn't. That's a problem, and why I don't support them anymore.

To be fair, the Democratic party had a whole list of senators who were at one time open about their membership in the KKK.  This was all the way up to around the time I was born in the mid-60s. I don't know of any now for sure, but Ralph Northam D-VA did not seem to have a problem wearing KKK garb AND taking a photo of it when he was in college in the 1980s.  I was in college then.  I can't say he is a KKK member, but there is that.

 

Which republican members of congress are Nazi's, in your opinion?

[ewen21]

 

Thanks for response.  I'm sympathetic to many points from both political sides, but what I think doesn't really matter.  I can talk about anything you want in private messages if that is what your sincere curiosity is, but putting what I, or anyone else says if it goes against the narrative, is unlikely to result in making people take a step back to think about what was said, instead of reacting to what was said.  We are all doing this now, reacting, and no longer thinking, contemplating.  Doesn't matter what your opinion is, what side you stand on.  If a Republican or a conservative, or any other political ideology you can think of beyond liberal/progressive says something here, the default position will be to oppose it, and that position will be rallied behind.  This occurs on conservative news sites as well.  We have 69 pages here in this thread and more than 200 pages in the Trump thread alone reaffirming there is only one acceptable narrative here, lest you be attacked by multiple people directly or more often indirectly for being uninformed, unenlightened, unprincipled, or not privy to the obvious certain correct point of view.   Some of these attacks are respectful and courteous, and are not name calling or being cruel in nature at all.  They are simply assuming that there is only one way to think, and coming from that angle when responding to people putting alternative opinions out there. This doesn't mean anyone is a bad person, this doesn't mean anyone here has an agenda of suffocating thought or discussion, this doesn't mean that people can't attempt to put these alternative opinions out there.  It just means that a strong majority having domination over a minuscule minority is how things work, and I haven't seen that many people attempt to push back in any meaningful way against that narrative until a few days ago.  And if that happens again, and I don't say anything, or no one else says anything, then the order of things continues on as it has been.

 

The person or person(s) with non-narrative following opinion will see the standard response and feel a lack of interest in participating further.  If this was a left leaning political board that would make complete sense, and maybe many with differing opinions would stray away, but it's a board based off a sports franchise, so you might figure there would be more political ideologies represented here, but instead you do not.  You only get one.  And this is true across 90%, maybe more, of the internet.  There's no conspiracy here, the majority opinion has been allowed to thrive and has been enriched while any dissenting or alternative opinions have been starved and ostracized out of discussions.  This isn't about TD, it's about the state of discourse.  I'm not sure this is what we all signed up for, but this is certainly what has happened, regardless of intent.

 

Right now, it is popular and safe, not brave, to attack any of these non liberal/progressive ideas, regardless of what they are.  And it would be great if those that, even when they disagree, would stand up for people with minority opinions, no matter how controversial they are.  Instead the opposite effect is happening, where people are becoming more afraid to share minority opinions, because the dog pile is becoming more intense and growing in number.  Of course, the conclusions from the people that believe with the rest of the collective might say to themselves, "well obviously, these are the opinions that are popular right now"  or "we are just preaching common sense here".  So we have justification for the situation by many individuals, and it continues to grow, and minority opinions continue to fold.

 

What I am willing to speak about here, is what has happened with our media, what has happened with our discussions, our communities.  Before we can even attempt to speak about our personal beliefs again in meaningful ways, I think we first have to address how difficult it is to have basic conversations anymore, before we can even begin to consider throwing out strong or even mild political opinions.  If we fail to agree that there is a fundamental problem with this, well, then that's that.

 

I'll say it again, but there was someone earlier in the thread that said we need to have more empathy and understanding, might have been Mike Sixel, don't know it was a while ago.  That was a great insight and that person is right.  I would love to see that occur here or elsewhere on other message boards at some point, but what I'm seeing is we appear to be going in the exact opposite direction from this trajectory and solidifying our grasp on the majority opinion having power until complete total power is obtained and unless we stop in our tracks and examine what is happening, it's going to continue in this direction.

Amazing post.  One of the best I have read on any message board in about 20 years of posting on message boards.  I've actually read it several times and may read it several more.  Thank you for the contribution!

[Mike Sixel]

It was me that said the culture is sadly deficient in empathy right now, and I mean the whole of it, not one of the many sides of it. Thanks for the kind words.

 

Until we are willing to put ourselves in others' places, and really think about and feel what they are going through, we can't really help them, or ourselves.

 

I'm not perfect in this regard, but that's why it's called a practice, or  journey....

[PseudoSABR]

 

To be fair, the Democratic party had a whole list of senators who were at one time open about their membership in the KKK.  This was all the way up to around the time I was born in the mid-60s. I don't know of any now for sure, but Ralph Northam D-VA did not seem to have a problem wearing KKK garb AND taking a photo of it when he was in college in the 1980s.  I was in college then.  I can't say he is a KKK member, but there is that.

 

Which republican members of congress are Nazi's, in your opinion?

That's not being fair at all.  To use pre-1960s southern democrats as some how representing what the party believes now is ridiculous, Northam's unforgivable choice for a costume notwithstanding. 

 

Nazi isn't particularly helpful term, but Trump certainly has some fascist leanings, what with his authoritarianism and nationalistic tendencies (that the Republicans largely go along with it, seems problematic--only 13 Republicans voted in favor of overturning his national "emergency").  What I see from a lot of Republicans is a Machiavellian rationale, that the ends of tax cuts and supreme court justices justifies what ever the anti-democratic means may be. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

The person or person(s) with non-narrative following opinion will see the standard response and feel a lack of interest in participating further.  If this was a left leaning political board that would make complete sense, and maybe many with differing opinions would stray away, but it's a board based off a sports franchise, so you might figure there would be more political ideologies represented here, but instead you do not.  You only get one.  And this is true across 90%, maybe more, of the internet.  There's no conspiracy here, the majority opinion has been allowed to thrive and has been enriched while any dissenting or alternative opinions have been starved and ostracized out of discussions.  This isn't about TD, it's about the state of discourse.  I'm not sure this is what we all signed up for, but this is certainly what has happened, regardless of intent.

Thanks for your thoughts, but I think you're being unfair to the reasonable people who've populated this thread (and others).  First, I reject that there's one narrative here; in fact, there's no one preferred candidate, we all differ in terms of priorities, and the discussion is particularly dominated by moderates, beyond myself and a handful others that identify as liberal (and a few conservative lurkers who drop in).  Second, I don't think any one of us would tolerate shutting down a discussion simply because we didn't agree with the premise.  I think if you look at the discussions members have had recently with Nasu1970, disagreeing with him, but encouraging him to participate and to find common ground as evidence for the opposite of that.  Yes, people will demand evidence and facts to support your opinion, and can be pretty harsh when posters don't back up what they say, or rely on obviously faulty evidence. 

 

What you won't get here, is a lot of affirmation.   As a liberal, I get some affirmation here, but mostly even when people agree, they find nuance to point out, and way to distinguish their own point of view.  That's what makes discussion here, I think, pretty rich. 

[ewen21]

 

That's not being fair at all.  To use pre-1960s southern democrats as some how representing what the party believes now is ridiculous, Northam's bad choice for a costume notwithstanding. 

 

Oh please.  Was any of it inaccurate?  How is it possibly unfair to state facts in the light of what Badsmurf allegedly said?  The KKK has an indoctrination process and here is your link on senators with time in the KKK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

Robert Byrd served all he way until 2010.  That is a fact.  Facts don't necessarily prove things, though...

 

Off the strength of that fact should I go around saying "The Democratic Party is the KKK party" because I have the link to back it up?

(I guess I just said it, but that isn't something I earnestly believe)

 

To say, "not all republicans are Nazi" is saying what exactly?  Is that a concession in some way?

Nazi is a very specific term and when someone broadly labels republicans or Trump supporters in that way they should expect to hear it from someone.  It is absurd.  It would be the same if I go around saying "The Democratic Party is the slavery party!  The Democratic Party is the KKK party!"

 

That kind of garbage should be curbed, in my opinion.  That is what chmpuckett was saying and I think he's dead on center.

[ewen21]

 

What you won't get here, is a lot of affirmation.   As a liberal, I get some affirmation here, but mostly even when people agree, they find nuance to point out, and way to distinguish their own point of view.  That's what makes discussion here, I think, pretty rich. 

What about dealing with opinions that are fundamentally different.  Reading through here I haven't seen it.  Almost nowhere.  Not all opinions on the right or the left are correct.

 

From what I can tell this board is overwhelmingly liberal. I actually took a "politics test" on my nephews phone during Christmastime because he could not pin me down.  The assessment took about 15 minutes to complete.  The results were displayed on a Cartesian Plane and it showed me to be almost dead center, slightly left.  I didn't vote for Trump (bet you thought I did).

 

For you to reject the idea there is not a "liberal narrative" here is absurd.  Maybe that phrase doesn't work for you.  How about erase that term and say this forum is dominated almost entirely by liberals.  What is the shame in admitting that?