TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: Trond on November 18, 2022, 11:14:01 AM

Title: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 18, 2022, 11:14:01 AM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on November 18, 2022, 05:27:15 PM
I'm not an American and unable to directly participate, so my own thoughts are perhaps no more helpful than yours. Nonetheless, I think there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

- It is worth remembering that the "simmering hatred" being perceived is in large part (though not wholly) a product of online interactions and discussions. There are communities and situations where that hostility is real, direct and personal against other people personally known by their real names and faces, but they are less numerous and widespread than one might expect going by the 'Net. Therefore, one action that might help minimize this effect would be to try to keep one's political interactions, where possible, on the local and personal level. Get involved in local school boards and town halls. If nothing else, this makes it clear exactly how opinions are really distributed.

- Try to understand what an antagonistic individual or group really wants by whatever they're declaring their "victory conditions": if what they ultimately want is protections for a particular group, can those protections be achieved by a solution you can both live with, if it's not their preferred one? It may be possible to come to productive compromises that way. (This is not always practical because people are not always honest about this, either to opponents, allies, or even themselves, but if compromise is possible this is usually a critical step.)

- Be willing to accept that compromise is the art of managing disappointment. This is one point where I see, perhaps, the Left being a little too stubborn about rejecting this and the Right being a little too quick to accept it, which is one reason the conflict has continued without finding productive resolution either way.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on November 18, 2022, 05:42:32 PM
Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions?

No, there isn't. One faction wants to create a global system of perpetual human degradation & slavery. This can't coexist with any other philosophy or ideology.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 18, 2022, 06:06:10 PM
I'm not an American and unable to directly participate, so my own thoughts are perhaps no more helpful than yours. Nonetheless, I think there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

- It is worth remembering that the "simmering hatred" being perceived is in large part (though not wholly) a product of online interactions and discussions. There are communities and situations where that hostility is real, direct and personal against other people personally known by their real names and faces, but they are less numerous and widespread than one might expect going by the 'Net. Therefore, one action that might help minimize this effect would be to try to keep one's political interactions, where possible, on the local and personal level. Get involved in local school boards and town halls. If nothing else, this makes it clear exactly how opinions are really distributed.

- Try to understand what an antagonistic individual or group really wants by whatever they're declaring their "victory conditions": if what they ultimately want is protections for a particular group, can those protections be achieved by a solution you can both live with, if it's not their preferred one? It may be possible to come to productive compromises that way. (This is not always practical because people are not always honest about this, either to opponents, allies, or even themselves, but if compromise is possible this is usually a critical step.)

- Be willing to accept that compromise is the art of managing disappointment. This is one point where I see, perhaps, the Left being a little too stubborn about rejecting this and the Right being a little too quick to accept it, which is one reason the conflict has continued without finding productive resolution either way.

Those are pretty good points.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 18, 2022, 07:08:35 PM
Online discussions can have real-world consequences when hate mobs are mobilised to cancel people. Pressure on employers can result in people losing their jobs, doxxing can put them and their families at risk. There isn't a nice and clean division between online and offline, where things happening in one don't affect the other.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on November 18, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

I suspect we are approaching but have not yet hit peak partisanship. The first step is going to be people disengaging from social media. There are a lot of people in a state of perpetual outrage over what the other side is doing, based on their social media feeds - which are tailored because outrage is the best way to get people to click on links.

The perpetual outrage can only hold for so long, though. I think as we adapt to the technology, there will be more significant pushback against it.

As people are less controlled by clickbait outrage, partisanship will lessen - though of course there will still be serious political divide as there has always been in this country.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on November 18, 2022, 10:00:37 PM
Hopefully, at some point some well respected, important, and popular people will stand up to the psychos on both sides of the aisle  and people will start shouting, "but he has nothing on at all," and things will start to settle down.  That's what it took to break down Mcarthyism and it's what it will take to bring back some normalicy to political discourse.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 19, 2022, 12:46:41 AM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

No.
Both sides have a vested interest in the other side being THE ULTIMATE EVIL. It's only going to grind on and get worse, and anyone who tries to calm things down or provide a sane alternative won't get as much attention and get pushed to the sidelines.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on November 19, 2022, 05:25:05 AM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

I don't think compromise is possible.

Recent event/anecdotal evidence.

There was a burlesque and drag show at Tennessee Tech recently. A video of the show has been circulating of minors (like under 8 years old) attending and encouraged to give tips to the drag queens on stage. A lot of people didn't like that. This has caused the TN legislation to create TN SB 3, which adds language to already existing laws to make it illegal for minors to attend burlesque performances or drag shows. Now, I've helped put on both kinds of shows for a couple of years and we did not ever have a problem like this, because we were never stupid enough to allow children to attend the shows.

When I voiced this opinion to some close friends who did shows with me that I have known for decades, I became a pariah and told that I wasn't wanted around. End of friendships.

To achieve a compromise, you have to be dealing with rational people. This current crop of woke activists just isn't rational IMHO. I mean not having children attend a sexualized performance and making a video of it is a no-brainer to me.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on November 19, 2022, 03:52:04 PM
Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions?

No.  The gap was only closed after the first Civil War because one side utterly crushed the other and then imposed its will on the defeated people.  It would either take that (and I think a military left vs. right conflict incredibly unlikely) or a peaceful separation.  I don't know why so many people are wedded to the idea of the U.S. staying together so strongly.  Countries have broken apart all through history, but the people themselves are usually still there.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Persian Empire -- most of the people/nationalities that lived under those governments are still around, they just aren't forced to live together "united" under a central government that most of them don't like.

People are used to thinking of the U.S. as a young country, but it actually has one of the oldest governments on earth.  There are very few countries on earth still operating under the same constitution and form of government they had two hundred and fifty years ago.  Splitting the country up and letting people live with people they agree with and under a government that they approve of is not a bad thing.  The U.S. colonies only united in the face of a common threat, and they all compromised in order to unify in the face of that common threat.  But that common threat doesn't exist anymore.  I feel that a strong, overreaching central U.S. government -- with its fear-mongering, lying, and media manipulating ways -- is the biggest threat we face today.  It's better to split up and maintain ties of trade and mutual defense as separate countries than it is to stay together as one country with our fellow countrymen as our most hated enemies.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 19, 2022, 07:35:47 PM
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.

I would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists.  The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution.  We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.

That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 19, 2022, 09:04:12 PM
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people (though anyone who is able to study the guy vs the perception of him for a few minutes also knows he is very often misrepresented, taken out of context, or simply misquoted too. But this is made easy by Trump himself who often blurts out divisive statements). There are also some odd clashes in philosophy; e.g. between focus on Christianity (which tends to ignore other faiths), and at the same time religious freedom (sometimes seeming contradictory), claiming to be more scientific (e.g. with gender/sex) and at the same time ignoring science when it is convenient (both sides do this, but the right has the history of ignoring evolution in the past, and very few conservative politicians even mention conservation of nature at all). Keep in mind; many leftists are just under the impression that blacks and women (and trans people etc) are being treated much worse than what actually seems to be the case (according to people on the right), and they have been bombarded with this “information” on a daily basis for years. 

-To the left, the demonizing of the right has gone way too far. Disagreement does not justify all the disruption we've seen coming from the left (in my perception the left is currently more violent than the right, feel free to disagree, but this is at the very least the case in my own neighborhood). A lot of the "anti-racism", "feminism", "LGBTQblahblah" comes across as pettiness and passive aggressiveness at best and open aggression at worst, and a lot of it clashes with common sense (also pointed out by some leftists, like Bill Maher). A lot of the criticisms against Trump were plainly made up. Keep in mind that some conservatives will agree to some gradual tweaking of the system, but not wholesale “tear it all down and build it up again” (I have a leftist friend who seriously suggested this). Also keep in mind that some of the “deplorable” Trump supporters and gun enthusiasts are also capable of what you see in this video (I know for a fact that the guy in the video who gets shot in the leg is a Trump supporter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQlGmcfDE&t=58s
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Tait Ransom on November 19, 2022, 09:49:37 PM
Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions?

Not anymore.  For the longest time, I believed progressives had things in common with me.  I thought we both wanted the best for the most people, and we simply disagreed on what that was.

That was before some colleagues - who I’ve never met and don’t work where I do - didn’t like a meme I posted and contacted my boss to accuse me of being racist and try to get me fired.

They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted.  I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more.  War.

My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship.  All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ocule on November 19, 2022, 10:11:37 PM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

I think a lot of us who aren't on the left, that doesn't mean right necessarily, have had this thought. I've given up, they don't want compromise or harmony or even to understand what the rest of us actually want. It's a cult, they aren't allowed by their own to understand the people they oppose. As a party they want absolute control over the whole country and everyone in it. They have no founding principles or even a consistent ideology, their organizers act with the simple goal of amassing power and influence using the mob as a bludgeon to get it.

At this point im done making compromises the issues they want us to submit to (they wont take compromise) aren't something any of us are willing to compromise on. Freedom of speech and right to bare arms are the two things they attack to the most and neither one is negotiable. What we need isnt compromise, it's a mass deprogramming of the weaponized delusions of the left.

-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people (though anyone who is able to study the guy vs the perception of him for a few minutes also knows he is very often misrepresented, taken out of context, or simply misquoted too. But this is made easy by Trump himself who often blurts out divisive statements). There are also some odd clashes in philosophy; e.g. between focus on Christianity (which tends to ignore other faiths), and at the same time religious freedom (sometimes seeming contradictory), claiming to be more scientific (e.g. with gender/sex) and at the same time ignoring science when it is convenient (both sides do this, but the right has the history of ignoring evolution in the past, and very few conservative politicians even mention conservation of nature at all). Keep in mind; many leftists are just under the impression that blacks and women (and trans people etc) are being treated much worse than what actually seems to be the case (according to people on the right), and they have been bombarded with this “information” on a daily basis for years. 

-To the left, the demonizing of the right has gone way too far. Disagreement does not justify all the disruption we've seen coming from the left (in my perception the left is currently more violent than the right, feel free to disagree, but this is at the very least the case in my own neighborhood). A lot of the "anti-racism", "feminism", "LGBTQblahblah" comes across as pettiness and passive aggressiveness at best and open aggression at worst, and a lot of it clashes with common sense (also pointed out by some leftists, like Bill Maher). A lot of the criticisms against Trump were plainly made up. Keep in mind that some conservatives will agree to some gradual tweaking of the system, but not wholesale “tear it all down and build it up again” (I have a leftist friend who seriously suggested this). Also keep in mind that some of the “deplorable” Trump supporters and gun enthusiasts are also capable of what you see in this video (I know for a fact that the guy in the video who gets shot in the leg is a Trump supporter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQlGmcfDE&t=58s


Trump isn't really the issue, if it's not Trump it's De Santis or Ted Cruz or Abbot. They paint all of them with the same brush, so we can swap names and faces but no matter who the right puts forward it's still "Trump."


The one saving grace of this whole situation is the people i meet in real life are nowhere near as deranged as those we see making these policies or appearing on the news. I can count on one hand the number of people I've met Irl that were so far gone that common sense has left the building. I had one girl ask me if she charged me with a pair of scissors if I'd still shoot her because I don't know what she really intends. The look on her face when I told her I'd ventilate her and never lose any sleep over it was priceless. Like it was just beyond her that someone would have a response like that.

What we have here isn't left vs right anymore, this is closer to mass hysteria
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 19, 2022, 10:25:15 PM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

I think a lot of us who aren't on the left, that doesn't mean right necessarily, have had this thought. I've given up, they don't want compromise or harmony or even to understand what the rest of us actually want. It's a cult, they aren't allowed by their own to understand the people they oppose. As a party they want absolute control over the whole country and everyone in it. They have no founding principles or even a consistent ideology, their organizers act with the simple goal of amassing power and influence using the mob as a bludgeon to get it.

At this point im done making compromises the issues they want us to submit to (they wont take compromise) aren't something any of us are willing to compromise on. Freedom of speech and right to bare arms are the two things they attack to the most and neither one is negotiable. What we need isnt compromise, it's a mass deprogramming of the weaponized delusions of the left.

-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people (though anyone who is able to study the guy vs the perception of him for a few minutes also knows he is very often misrepresented, taken out of context, or simply misquoted too. But this is made easy by Trump himself who often blurts out divisive statements). There are also some odd clashes in philosophy; e.g. between focus on Christianity (which tends to ignore other faiths), and at the same time religious freedom (sometimes seeming contradictory), claiming to be more scientific (e.g. with gender/sex) and at the same time ignoring science when it is convenient (both sides do this, but the right has the history of ignoring evolution in the past, and very few conservative politicians even mention conservation of nature at all). Keep in mind; many leftists are just under the impression that blacks and women (and trans people etc) are being treated much worse than what actually seems to be the case (according to people on the right), and they have been bombarded with this “information” on a daily basis for years. 

-To the left, the demonizing of the right has gone way too far. Disagreement does not justify all the disruption we've seen coming from the left (in my perception the left is currently more violent than the right, feel free to disagree, but this is at the very least the case in my own neighborhood). A lot of the "anti-racism", "feminism", "LGBTQblahblah" comes across as pettiness and passive aggressiveness at best and open aggression at worst, and a lot of it clashes with common sense (also pointed out by some leftists, like Bill Maher). A lot of the criticisms against Trump were plainly made up. Keep in mind that some conservatives will agree to some gradual tweaking of the system, but not wholesale “tear it all down and build it up again” (I have a leftist friend who seriously suggested this). Also keep in mind that some of the “deplorable” Trump supporters and gun enthusiasts are also capable of what you see in this video (I know for a fact that the guy in the video who gets shot in the leg is a Trump supporter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hQlGmcfDE&t=58s


Trump isn't really the issue, if it's not Trump it's De Santis or Ted Cruz or Abbot. They paint all of them with the same brush, so we can swap names and faces but no matter who the right puts forward it's still "Trump."


The one saving grace of this whole situation is the people i meet in real life are nowhere near as deranged as those we see making these policies or appearing on the news. I can count on one hand the number of people I've met Irl that were so far gone that common sense has left the building. I had one girl ask me if she charged me with a pair of scissors if I'd still shoot her because I don't know what she really intends. The look on her face when I told her I'd ventilate her and never lose any sleep over it was priceless. Like it was just beyond her that someone would have a response like that.

What we have here isn't left vs right anymore, this is closer to mass hysteria

First to the “given up” part. Yes some leftists don’t want compromise, at all. But also notice some of the responses here in this thread. Some of them seem unhinged to me, and no better or more helpful than some of the worst BS on the left. I hope people snap out of it of course but meanwhile; the “normal” people leaning left or right, like you also talk about here as a saving grace, are the ones I think we have to focus on. Some people haven’t even been in their faction very long; Trump and “Trumpism” made some conservatives shift more left, and wokeness has made certain leftists move more to the right.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 19, 2022, 11:06:03 PM
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.

See what I mean? The lefties want to rape our children, the righties want to kill the gays, the lefties want to murder babies, the righties want to enslave women.
How can these two positions possible reconcile?

Quote
I would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists.  The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution.  We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.

That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.

Hope in one hand and shit in the other...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 12:05:34 AM
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.

See what I mean? The lefties want to rape our children, the righties want to kill the gays, the lefties want to murder babies, the righties want to enslave women.
How can these two positions possible reconcile?

Quote
I would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists.  The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution.  We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.

That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.

Hope in one hand and shit in the other...

Just to turn things up a notch; Maybe both sides can become friends if they find a common scapegoat. It’s the Jews I tell you, the Jeeews!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 20, 2022, 08:39:25 AM
From my perspective, the ball is entirely on one side of the court. And it isn't my side.

One side wants the other to cease to be silenced, shut out of society, degraded, humiliated, mocked, and ultimately cease to exist. And it's not my side. I'm wiling to live and let live, they aren't.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on November 20, 2022, 01:17:03 PM
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people.
Trump isn’t divisive. Trump didn’t create MAGA. Trump just gave a voice to the producing class that has been denied one by a technocratic globalist elite. Just like the TEA Party was before (that the Uniparty elites co-opted in order to stamp it out too).

Anyone who espouses MAGA-like beliefs will be just as attacked and derided because its not the person… its the MESSAGE that challenges the authority of our self-appointed parasitical “betters” that they want destroyed. Those of us they don’t want “reduced” (i.e. murdered) they want enslaved in high density urban housing eating bugs and genetically modified grass with our every move tracked while they travel in private jets to private island resorts to dine on grass fed prime rib and roast duck as they devise policies to make everyone else even more subservient to their whims.

It’s also a mistake to presume that even the elite’s dupes want that life… they’ve been sold the same false bill of goods of a personal utopia if they’ll just comply in bringing about the tyrants’ control of the system but will probably be the first on the chopping blocks as is always the case with useful idiots who are no longer necessary for their leaders’ plans.

If they didn’t have the marching orders of the couple thousand elitist assholes to tear down the rest of society so they can then rule the ashes we could live with them just fine. It’s the couple thousand WEF and similar self-appointed elites who want to run everyone’s lives from cradle to grave we can’t live with.

Remove Trump and the movement he represents will still be here wanting the same things because the desires are organic. Remove the elites from the other side and the mass of devotees would quickly dissolve because only the elites truly desire their goals (and even many of them lack the understanding that what they want is impossible and will destroy them long before it does more than hurt the productive classes).
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 01:42:23 PM
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people.
Trump isn’t divisive. ....
He most definitely is. With chants like "lock her up" he made political discussion continue its downward spiral. His bragging also rubs people the wrong way. To begin with he didn't even know who his base was, so he would sometimes e.g. make statements in favor of more censorship (of video games etc).
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 20, 2022, 01:49:12 PM
Well, for a couple of reasons, this thread is part of the problem in American politics.  First, it treats compromise as if it is always the best resolution of a problem, when that is not always the case.  Let's say I want to rape your 4 daughters.  You don't want me to rape your daughters at all.  Is the proper resolution to this letting me rape two of them?  Sometimes the "middle" is just as wrong as the extremes.

Fifty years ago, democrats and republicans both believed in the American Dream.  They believed that America offered the best possible outcome for its citizens, compared to any other country or culture.  They were all American Exceptionalists.  They saw American culture and its ethos as a force for good in the world.  They just differed on how that ethos was to be spread, safeguarded, and extended to all of its citizens (and immigrants).  Both sides believed in the great melting pot.

Now, both sides do NOT share a common vision of what America should be.  One sides hates the American Dream, calls it racist, sexist, and bigoted, believes it is illegitimate and evil at its founding.  One side no longer believes that immigrants should be assimilated into American culture; in fact, they believe that immigrant cultures are equal to or better than American culture.  One side no longer accepts the institutions of America, the law, the self-reliance, the freedom of speech.  Are you suggesting that I should compromise with those who say I can't state what I see as a biological fact, because it might hurt the feelings of some dude who wishes he was a chick?  That's "reconciliation"?  Sounds a lot more like "capitulation"...

And third, with all due respect, as an immigrant you need to shut the fuck up.  You left your country and your culture.  If your country or culture had anything to offer, then you should have stuck it out there.  Most of the ideas that have caused the degradation of American culture are foreign in origin to begin with.  Europeans invented fascism, communism, socialism, the welfare state.  They invented speech codes, disarmed their populations, and yoked themselves with an unelected aristocracy to give them orders.  The communists managed to infiltrate the universities and media to bring that garbage over here (and it poisoned us, so that we have still declined long after the Soviets have fallen).  If you had any sense or self-awareness, you might have recognized that, maybe, you should learn about what we do here, how we think, live, prosper, before you butt your nose in with ill-informed opinions.  Learn to be an American before you tell us what we need to do.  We've got enough "help" from our immigrants... we don't need any more of your culture...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on November 20, 2022, 02:23:23 PM
Trump isn’t divisive. ....
He most definitely is. With chants like "lock her up" he made political discussion continue its downward spiral...

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ruprecht on November 20, 2022, 02:43:22 PM
Regarding the trans agenda and sexualizing of children... Most leftists don't support that stuff, they are just to stupid to realize how far their side has gone so quickly. GOP needs to put this sort of thing front and center on every election and force the Democrats to state their position.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on November 20, 2022, 02:57:30 PM
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive. Even if you agree with his ideas, it shouldn't be hard to realize that the guy rubs A LOT of people the wrong way, even a good chunk of traditionally conservative people.
Trump isn’t divisive. ....
He most definitely is. With chants like "lock her up" he made political discussion continue its downward spiral. His bragging also rubs people the wrong way. To begin with he didn't even know who his base was, so he would sometimes e.g. make statements in favor of more censorship (of video games etc).
And by avoiding the rest of the statement you ignore the actual point to argue an irrelevant side detail.

Anyone, no matter how polite, who genuinely espoused President Trump’s populist positions would be labeled divisive and attacked without mercy by the eilte-controlled globalist media and investigated without end by the Department of Injustice and Federal Bullies of Intimidation.

You aren’t American so you’re probably unaware that the Leftist elites loved President Trump and his speech and bragging right up until he turned it against them. Only when it was turned on them was it divisive and unacceptable. The part the elites really object to isn’t the messenger (Trump) it’s the message (i.e. America should do what’s best for the working class and producers instead of for a handful of self-entitled parasite grifters).

They pulled the exact same crap on Kari Lake because she had the exact same message. To the extent Ron DeSantis hasn’t completely sold out to his new billionaire donors looking for a return to the days where the Chamber of Crony Commerce decided what the Republic party would and would not support… they oppose him too.

By contrast, Lying Liz Cheney is an acceptable Republican because she wants the same grifting environmental and endless war grifting the rest of the elites do.

The divide isn’t even Left or Right… it’s elitist parasite vs. the working/producing class. There are plenty supposedly on the Right (ex. McConnell and McCarthy and Romney) who are every bit aligned with the Left in destroying the ability of the working/producing class to have a voice in government.

Until you understand that you will fail to understand what’s really going on in US politics and why compromise is impossible.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 20, 2022, 03:09:14 PM
Regarding the trans agenda and sexualizing of children... Most leftists don't support that stuff, they are just to stupid to realize how far their side has gone so quickly. GOP needs to put this sort of thing front and center on every election and force the Democrats to state their position.

Nope.  They know.  How many leftists have accidentally crossed the line, made a comment about trans that gets them canceled?  Almost none.  They toe the line on social media, at work, among their peers.  They know what's going on; they just have no interest in reigning in their compatriots.  They may not be willing to do the dirty work themselves, but they are happy with the outcome.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 03:18:06 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on November 20, 2022, 03:29:39 PM
Leftists as they operate politically right now are openly and aggressively anti white.   They can say what ever they want and operate under direct color of law in many institutions being just that, anti white.  They also want boys in girl's locker rooms.  I can not, and will not ever reach anything that looks like compromise with those positions.  I have no interest to do so and will make no effort to do so.  What I will do is teach and train my kids to be pinnacle mental and physical performance, because they will have to be the ones to survive when shit really hits the fan in 15-20 years.   Lots of things could prevent SHTF, technology breakthroughs, aliens landing, WW3, etc.  But on current course with political direction I get to be told to find "common ground" with people who want trannies around kids/boys in girl locker rooms and who are openly anti white.  Hard Pass.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on November 20, 2022, 03:54:12 PM
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective here: You think that the moderate position is to be okay with mobsters running the government for their own profit, killing people and starting wars for personal enrichment and power?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on November 20, 2022, 04:01:24 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.

When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?

Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.

So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 20, 2022, 04:39:47 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).

This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets.  We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics.  Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports).  If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE.  Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia.  It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 04:54:56 PM

Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.

When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?

Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.

So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.

Oh yes, I am hard-core moderate. The middle-way or death.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 05:05:37 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).

This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets.  We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics.  Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports).  If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE.  Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia.  It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...

Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans.  I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 20, 2022, 05:28:21 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).

This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets.  We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics.  Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports).  If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE.  Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia.  It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...

Yep.  It's not extremist to believe in traditional family values. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 20, 2022, 05:29:34 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).

This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets.  We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics.  Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports).  If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE.  Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia.  It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...

Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans.  I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason.

The only people who overemphasize race are the hustlers and grifters who make their living keeping racism alive in the name of being anti-racist.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 05:33:46 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).

This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets.  We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics.  Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports).  If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE.  Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia.  It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...

Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans.  I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason.

The only people who overemphasize race are the hustlers and grifters who make their living keeping racism alive in the name of being anti-racist.

I agree. And it's very much an American problem today, more so than almost anywhere else I can think of. Sweden is probably the closest.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 20, 2022, 05:55:03 PM
Greetings!

Compromise? NO COMPROMISE!

The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.

In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.

Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches. Historically, when two cultures or political groups diametrically opposed to each other have existed, that is always how the conflict develops and is engaged. The losing culture or group is ruthlessly crushed.

So, that's how it must be.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 20, 2022, 06:25:32 PM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.

"Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater (an actual AMERICAN, who understood our culture and values).

This whole "the middle is so much better" argument is as European as it gets.  We don't want your advice on how to "fix" our country or politics.  Your ideas are the reason our politics are as screwed up as they are (socialism, communism, and the welfare state are imports).  If you are so enamored with the Euro-middle (which is far left in an American political sense), GO BACK THERE.  Otherwise, listen and learn what made America the greatest nation in the past millennia.  It wasn't European sensibilities, that's for sure...

Great, your version of the American way is working so well for you right now. I seem to be more fond of America than most Americans.  I have noticed that if someone posts some purely negative meme about America online, it's usually Americans who laugh. The people who laugh are usually the woke. Americans even invented a whole lot of the woke lingo, and many Europeans have noticed. For instance an extremely American thing is the over-emphasis on race. If anything makes me move, that will probably be the reason.

The only people who overemphasize race are the hustlers and grifters who make their living keeping racism alive in the name of being anti-racist.

I agree. And it's very much an American problem today, more so than almost anywhere else I can think of. Sweden is probably the closest.
Because of the leftist (read "Soviet") infiltration of the universities and media.  The Soviet propaganda was always to try and draw moral equivalence between slavery and race relations and whatever the criticism of the USSR at the time, and their parrots in the universities and media simply repeated it.  As I mentioned above, the poison injected by the left in the 20s through the 60s has long outlived the poisoner.  This Influence is well documented, and at one point a major focus of our intelligence agencies.  Now those agencies have been co-opted as well.  Our "version" of America right now has been imported from Europe.  We don't need any more, so, unless you plan to learn more about what America actually stood for, you can leave at any time...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 20, 2022, 07:05:02 PM

Our "version" of America right now has been imported from Europe.  We don't need any more, so, unless you plan to learn more about what America actually stood for, you can leave at any time...

A lot of what America stood for was checks and balances, religious freedom etc. And a lot of this thinking came out of Enlightenment thinking.
The original "version" was made up of European immigrants, remember? And if you claim that no the ideas behind the American constitution is wholly American, then you might as well take credit for the wokeness. Of course, neither of those developed in a vacuum. For the last couple of decades now a lot of the wokeness has been coming from America, and is very much a product of American thinking gone wrong.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 20, 2022, 09:48:01 PM
Greetings!

Yes, Trond, European immigrants have contributed greatly to America. Primarily so in forging the foundations. Europeans and European thinking, philosophy, and influence throughout our history has been a mix of the very best and the very worst. Later on, of course, lots of other folks would put their efforts into making America great, whether they were Indians, Blacks, Eastern or Southern Europeans, Mexicans, Asians, and many other smaller groups.

YOU are still welcome here, in your new homeland, friend.

As for modern currents, plenty of the most terrible things have been home-grown right here, pushed and promoted and celebrated by native-born Americans. As Eirikautha pointed out--much of the inspiration from such terrible movements and philosophies ultimately have their roots again, in European circles, most prominently the Communists from the Soviet Union. Plenty of godless, degeneracy and corruption has also been inspired from the fucking French, British, Italians, and God knows who else. How about fucking Soros? That scumbag is Hungarian. I like Hungarians. Hungarians are great--but that fucker Soros can gargle with Napalm.

I think we have entered a terminal stage of our empire. The more recent fractures--driven by the Libtards--have pushed this country into all kinds of problems, that frankly, I think the differences, the world visions--are quite clear, and they are fundamentally different. In the past, as others mentioned, Chris I think--were minimal, and often stylistic rather than differences of a foundational philosophy. Those days are long gone, in the rearview mirror.

Now, we are dealing with the Libtards that hate white people, hate America, and hate Christianity. They also hate middle-class working people, CAPITALISTS, and our Republican government. Self Reliance, independence, parental authority, local autonomy, GUN RIGHTS AND GUNS!--the list goes on and on, and on.

The Libtards are merely godless, evil, tyrannical Globalist Marxists. Scratch the paint off, and they embody everything that this country has hated and worked against for the past hundred years. Yes, the political Communism, but also so much of everything else they believe and promote--is poisonous, corrupt, and hateful to everything that America traditionally stands for and cherishes.

Yes, in the past, we trained to go to war and kill these same kinds of people. We have worked to resist them and fight them here in every way, for generations.

They, themselves, have embraced the cloak and mantle of our enemy. Such is not what right-thinking Americans insisted on forcing upon them--they gleefully and proudly have embraced such ideology, and have built, and molded, and shaped themselves into the enemy of America. European Aristocrat Tyrants, Japanese Imperialists, German Nazis, Soviet Communists, Globalists--all of them, have contributed ingredients into being our enemy, and what we hate the most. It is fundamental, Trond.

The conflict is historical, philosophical, ideological--and spiritual. We are a free people, and they embrace an elitist, globalist Tyranny.

You wonder if we can "Compromise". In the past, we waged wars. We hunted these fuckers down in the courts or the streets, imprisoning them, killing them, or driving them to hide impotent in the shadows away from the light, lest they be crushed like a cockroach.

There isn't any room or even reason to compromise with these monsters. They are corruption, in the flesh, and poisonous to a good and strong America. This struggle will determine whether this country continues as an independent, free nation--a REPUBLIC--not a fucking "Democracy"--or becomes a globalist slave state, a gullible breeding farm of pigs and whoring strumpets that are easily manipulated and controlled with "Bread and Circuses" by the smug, ruling elites. The struggle embraces "Left and Right"--but also as mentioned, has grown to truly be far more than that. The struggle is not merely *political* now--over obscure policy differences--but the scope of conflict embraces ideology, religion, economics, our national history and identity, parents authority over their children, and on down the line. Family, faith, culture. So many things that aren't just a slight difference of opinion or approach--but so different, it makes people hate you, fearful of you, or want to crush you with a lead pipe. You don't fuck with the issues I listed above--and not get people violent real fast. Again, fundamental, deep conflicts. It isn't just older, white, Conservative men that are going nuts at schoolboard meetings, as we have often seen recently. Women have as well. Mothers, grandmothers, and more. Younger people are also standing up--and showing up--to protest, fight, and otherwise stand against the Leftist Globalist tyranny. Again, on many different issues. It has definitely intensified--and people have woken up to the threat of globalist Marxism, the tyrant mommy-state, the anti-white racism, the hatred of America, Christianity, our Bible, and our guns. More, and more. So, yeah, the fight is definitely coming, in many avenues and areas of society.

I expect more conflict, rather than less.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 21, 2022, 01:47:34 AM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.

When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?

Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.

So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.

The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.

So their extremism was necessary.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 21, 2022, 06:50:06 AM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.

When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?

Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.

So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.

The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.

So their extremism was necessary.

I guess the "... in defense of liberty" part was too difficult to read?  Exterminating others is not "liberty."  A leftist can try to twist words to mean what they don't (see "woman"), but that doesn't change the fact that liberty doesn't include killing off part of your citizenry.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 21, 2022, 06:56:49 AM
Greetings!

Yes, Trond, European immigrants have contributed greatly to America. Primarily so in forging the foundations. Europeans and European thinking, philosophy, and influence throughout our history has been a mix of the very best and the very worst. Later on, of course, lots of other folks would put their efforts into making America great, whether they were Indians, Blacks, Eastern or Southern Europeans, Mexicans, Asians, and many other smaller groups.

YOU are still welcome here, in your new homeland, friend.

As for modern currents, plenty of the most terrible things have been home-grown right here, pushed and promoted and celebrated by native-born Americans. As Eirikautha pointed out--much of the inspiration from such terrible movements and philosophies ultimately have their roots again, in European circles, most prominently the Communists from the Soviet Union. Plenty of godless, degeneracy and corruption has also been inspired from the fucking French, British, Italians, and God knows who else. How about fucking Soros? That scumbag is Hungarian. I like Hungarians. Hungarians are great--but that fucker Soros can gargle with Napalm.

I think we have entered a terminal stage of our empire. The more recent fractures--driven by the Libtards--have pushed this country into all kinds of problems, that frankly, I think the differences, the world visions--are quite clear, and they are fundamentally different. In the past, as others mentioned, Chris I think--were minimal, and often stylistic rather than differences of a foundational philosophy. Those days are long gone, in the rearview mirror.

Now, we are dealing with the Libtards that hate white people, hate America, and hate Christianity. They also hate middle-class working people, CAPITALISTS, and our Republican government. Self Reliance, independence, parental authority, local autonomy, GUN RIGHTS AND GUNS!--the list goes on and on, and on.

The Libtards are merely godless, evil, tyrannical Globalist Marxists. Scratch the paint off, and they embody everything that this country has hated and worked against for the past hundred years. Yes, the political Communism, but also so much of everything else they believe and promote--is poisonous, corrupt, and hateful to everything that America traditionally stands for and cherishes.

Yes, in the past, we trained to go to war and kill these same kinds of people. We have worked to resist them and fight them here in every way, for generations.

They, themselves, have embraced the cloak and mantle of our enemy. Such is not what right-thinking Americans insisted on forcing upon them--they gleefully and proudly have embraced such ideology, and have built, and molded, and shaped themselves into the enemy of America. European Aristocrat Tyrants, Japanese Imperialists, German Nazis, Soviet Communists, Globalists--all of them, have contributed ingredients into being our enemy, and what we hate the most. It is fundamental, Trond.

The conflict is historical, philosophical, ideological--and spiritual. We are a free people, and they embrace an elitist, globalist Tyranny.

You wonder if we can "Compromise". In the past, we waged wars. We hunted these fuckers down in the courts or the streets, imprisoning them, killing them, or driving them to hide impotent in the shadows away from the light, lest they be crushed like a cockroach.

There isn't any room or even reason to compromise with these monsters. They are corruption, in the flesh, and poisonous to a good and strong America. This struggle will determine whether this country continues as an independent, free nation--a REPUBLIC--not a fucking "Democracy"--or becomes a globalist slave state, a gullible breeding farm of pigs and whoring strumpets that are easily manipulated and controlled with "Bread and Circuses" by the smug, ruling elites. The struggle embraces "Left and Right"--but also as mentioned, has grown to truly be far more than that. The struggle is not merely *political* now--over obscure policy differences--but the scope of conflict embraces ideology, religion, economics, our national history and identity, parents authority over their children, and on down the line. Family, faith, culture. So many things that aren't just a slight difference of opinion or approach--but so different, it makes people hate you, fearful of you, or want to crush you with a lead pipe. You don't fuck with the issues I listed above--and not get people violent real fast. Again, fundamental, deep conflicts. It isn't just older, white, Conservative men that are going nuts at schoolboard meetings, as we have often seen recently. Women have as well. Mothers, grandmothers, and more. Younger people are also standing up--and showing up--to protest, fight, and otherwise stand against the Leftist Globalist tyranny. Again, on many different issues. It has definitely intensified--and people have woken up to the threat of globalist Marxism, the tyrant mommy-state, the anti-white racism, the hatred of America, Christianity, our Bible, and our guns. More, and more. So, yeah, the fight is definitely coming, in many avenues and areas of society.

I expect more conflict, rather than less.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Gonna have to disagree with one part of this, SHARK.  What's the worst part about Florida?  The fact that a bunch of New Yorkers , who've already screwed up their state to the point where they feel the need to leave, move down and then vote in Florida for the same stuff they did in New York.  Ditto that for Californians moving to Texas.  The sheer hubris, the unbridled arrogance, to leave some other country for America, only to decide you can lecture us on how we need to change in order to "get along".  We don't need that.  Become an American (in mind, as well as residence) first...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on November 21, 2022, 10:12:35 AM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.

When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?

Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.

So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.

The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.

So their extremism was necessary.
Outside of cartoons, evil always claims it’s doing a good thing, but as the saying goes, “by your fruits you will know them.” Any ideology or group that says innocents need to die for their good to be reached is evil and needs to be opposed. The Nazis were evildoers making excuses for why their evils were actually good.

By contrast, I don’t need or even want the Left dead; I just need them out of power so they can no longer hurt innocent people.

Compromise with evil may be a lesser evil, but it is still evil and should always be rejected unless every better option is impossible. Compromise just for compromise’s sake when what the other side wants is evil (and will keep pushing for more… requiring ever more “compromise”) is nothing but capitulation.

Because the Left/Evil will never honor a compromise. You agree that only half the Jews should be executed and six months down the line they’re back wanting to kill all Jews and the compromise is to agree that half of the half spared must be executed… then six months after that this repeats and now nearly 90% are dead and the evil ones will then demand another compromise and another until finally the last Jew must be cleaved in two in the name of compromise.

Compromise only works when both sides are dealing in good faith. Evil never acts in good faith.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 21, 2022, 10:25:34 AM

It's not divisive to want to prosecute people who are criminals. Hillary Clinton is a criminal (as are most politicians). In a society with a functional Justice system, these people would be in jail.

As Eirikrautha points out, pretending to be moderate or centrist in this type of way is a fake, poseur stance and it demonstrates real character flaws that you're unwilling to actually make a principled stance in favor of something Good (Rule of Law / Justice).
No it's not "fake" it's a real stance. If you agree with everything on one side then you are probably the more of a fake. But I'm not saying you are, because you MIGHT have some stance that does not fit with the right. In which case you're a bit of a moderate.
Being an extremist is much worse.
Extremism in the cause of right is no vice and compromising with evil no virtue.

When Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews would it be virtuous to compromise and only let him murder half? Or would it be virtuous to do everything in your power to take the fucker down and save as many Jews as possible?

Now, me? I’m an extremist. I believe in making no compromises with Hitler or anyone else who wants others to die for their own benefit.

So, either admit that sometimes extremism is necessary and good or put your money where your mouth is and publically state for the record that the Allies should have compromised and let Hitler kill half the Jews on Earth.

The Nazi position was that the Jews were an existential threat, and that exterminating them was morally justified.

So their extremism was necessary.

I guess the "... in defense of liberty" part was too difficult to read?  Exterminating others is not "liberty."  A leftist can try to twist words to mean what they don't (see "woman"), but that doesn't change the fact that liberty doesn't include killing off part of your citizenry.

So are you willing to make compromises and coexist with the radical left? Because they aren't going away and they will not stop.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on November 21, 2022, 10:33:51 AM
Any ideology or position can be bad. There's no easy shortcut to avoid being The Bad Guy, even if you're "for Liberty" or some other nonsense.

For example, it's definitely arguable that we have too much "liberty" in America. Letting criminals walk free with little to no consequences, to commit further crimes, might in some sense further "liberty." Nevertheless it's definitely not Good to let evil psychopaths go on to rape and commit murder on innocents.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on November 22, 2022, 11:36:44 AM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 22, 2022, 12:21:21 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 01:16:18 PM
There can be no compromise. If you're for sexualizing children, allowing completely unrestrained illegal immigration, and throwing good money after bad on countries that hate the US, you're complete anti-American and should be killed.

See what I mean? The lefties want to rape our children, the righties want to kill the gays, the lefties want to murder babies, the righties want to enslave women.
How can these two positions possible reconcile?

Quote
I would have zero problems with an insurgency that killed off leftists.  The problem, however, is that humans can't just stop, they have to find "the next" and it turns into the French Revolution.  We *already* see this from leftists who find "-ist" behavior where it doesn't exist because they have to have some form of commie struggle.

That having been said, one would *hope* that an insurgency by conservatives (not neocons) and combat vets would be well-regulated.

Hope in one hand and shit in the other...

The overwhelming majority are in the middle thinking you've all gone mad. It's why I think it's so silly to hear talk of civil war - most of us wouldn't show up to your tantrum.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 01:17:36 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ghostmaker on November 22, 2022, 02:29:14 PM
Next time (if you get one), don't make a habit out of jumping immediately to calling your political opponents Nazis.

Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 22, 2022, 03:14:11 PM
Next time (if you get one), don't make a habit out of jumping immediately to calling your political opponents Nazis.

Just sayin'.

Which post is this referring to?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on November 22, 2022, 03:39:38 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.


  LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office.  Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat.  He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.   
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on November 22, 2022, 03:44:01 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

  Buddy, when you are telling me my daughter has to go into the locker room with dudes and you are for mutilating kids' genitals.....I wont say to shoot you, but I sure as hell do not think you and I are going to have enough common ground to be in the same nation.  The conclusion is not to shoot anyone, but it is to say there are issues so dividing there is going to be no middle ground or healing.  Amicable divorce is the best long term solution.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on November 22, 2022, 03:47:22 PM
  The position that Trump was some right wing extremist for having all the same positions as a late 80's/90's democrat is fucking hilarious.   The media and smooth brains perceive him as being "right wing" because most people are right wing compared to communist/socialists, which is what Obama was.    The entire notion of Trump being "right wing extreme" is just flat out fucktarded and ignoring how fast the window was shifted by media and influence makers in the country.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 22, 2022, 04:01:17 PM
Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.

I don't think all LGBTs are groomers.

I do think there are lots of LGBT people who are, however. I say this as a gay man, who has seen it going on and heard and read it advocated for first hand. Its not new. It was an old and dirty open secret in the 90s/00's, and you can read articles about it in LGBT zines and books as far back as, at least, the 70s. And I'm sick to death of people pretending otherwise, and I condemn anyone who is silent about it or tries to pretend it doesn't happen as complicit.

When I came out, it was almost expected that young gay people would be "initiated" by older gay men. Sometimes this was nominally legal, if morally suspect - 18 and 19 year olds with 40, 50 year old men or older. Other times it was not legal at all, and everyone was expected to just keep quiet about it, it was the way it was.

And that's before you get into some of the more recent issues. I'm just talking the stuff that's been going on for a long time. NAMBLA has been a thing since the late 70s. And it doesn't even operate in secret. It's a fucking gay pedophilia advocacy group.

Call it out, call it out loudly and often, or be counted as one of them. I hold myself to no lesser of a standard.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 22, 2022, 04:28:52 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

From the very first post.  There's nothing more boneheaded than a foreigner deciding to lecture Americans on how to solve American politics....
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 22, 2022, 04:56:28 PM
I don't think all LGBTs are groomers.

I do think there are lots of LGBT people who are, however. I say this as a gay man, who has seen it going on and heard and read it advocated for first hand. Its not new. It was an old and dirty open secret in the 90s/00's, and you can read articles about it in LGBT zines and books as far back as, at least, the 70s. And I'm sick to death of people pretending otherwise, and I condemn anyone who is silent about it or tries to pretend it doesn't happen as complicit.

When I came out, it was almost expected that young gay people would be "initiated" by older gay men. Sometimes this was nominally legal, if morally suspect - 18 and 19 year olds with 40, 50 year old men or older. Other times it was not legal at all, and everyone was expected to just keep quiet about it, it was the way it was.

And that's before you get into some of the more recent issues. I'm just talking the stuff that's been going on for a long time. NAMBLA has been a thing since the late 70s. And it doesn't even operate in secret. It's a fucking gay pedophilia advocacy group.

Call it out, call it out loudly and often, or be counted as one of them. I hold myself to no lesser of a standard.

In the 1970s in the UK, the Paedophile Information Exchange (a real organisation, Google it) was affiliated with the mainstream Labour Party.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 05:09:02 PM
Next time (if you get one), don't make a habit out of jumping immediately to calling your political opponents Nazis.

Just sayin'.

Which post is this referring to?

All of them?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 05:11:09 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.


  LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office.  Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat.  He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.

Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.

Waging war is neither right nor left wing. Democrats also wage a lot of war.

You can call him whatever you want relative to Trump, but it's obvious anyone not on board with Trumpian politics is considered a RINO these days. A GW Bush supporter. like myself, is called a RINO. Right here in fact.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 05:14:21 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

From the very first post.  There's nothing more boneheaded than a foreigner deciding to lecture Americans on how to solve American politics....

(https://i.ibb.co/tXSpRR1/image.png)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 22, 2022, 05:23:32 PM
Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.

A good example of them managing to be wrong about everything, if you ask me. A stopped clock can be wrong twice a day? Something.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on November 22, 2022, 05:28:51 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.


  LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office.  Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat.  He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.

Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.

Waging war is neither right nor left wing. Democrats also wage a lot of war.

You can call him whatever you want relative to Trump, but it's obvious anyone not on board with Trumpian politics is considered a RINO these days. A GW Bush supporter. like myself, is called a RINO. Right here in fact.

  The problem with that term RINO, is it is meaningless.  Republicans do not stand for shit, the past 3 decades bombing people into democracy and slow walking any uber left bullshit, but never pushing back.    If you supported GW, you are not a RINO, you are just an idiot.   I don't call GW anything I want, I just call it like it was and is.  Trump is LEFT of GW on almost everything, and he is called a right wing extremist (I guess having the audacity to think American leaders should put the needs of America and Americans first is nutty right wing bullshit). 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 22, 2022, 05:43:01 PM
Greetings!

GW Bush was a mediocre President, at the end of the day. He was somewhat *Conservative*--but not nearly as strong a Conservative as he should have been. Too much fucking RINO in him. Too fucking weak; too fucking greedy and self interested; and too fucking corrupt; Morally a spineless jellyfish far too eager to suck Leftist cock, and engage in *Compromise*. Conveniently, the RINOS always sell Conservative principles down the river when it means they can make a profit, gain popularity, or ensure their cushy political position with more certainty. Globalist, Corporatist, neocon scum. Political Jellyfish like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Liz Chaney, Katzinger, et al. They are all useless, weak, and pathetic. Noe of them have been strong champions for Conservative values and objectives.

So, fuck them.

GW Bush wasn't as bad as most of the Neocon RINO scum, but that doesn't make him a Conservative Champion. As I said, he was mediocre, or Ok as a President. His second term as President was fucking embarrassing, being full of absolute incompetence, moral scandals, and various flavours of corruption. Ultimately, GW's Presidency didn't do *Conservatism* any favours, and let down many Conservative voters and supporters that expected far more from GW Bush. For a Republican President that won two elections in a row, had Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House--and yet, again, at the end of the day, the overall Republican performance and achievement during those 8 fucking years was at best, mediocre.

On a broader sweep, it is the RINO cock-sucking, compromise, self-interest, and lying that has ultimately led to people fervently supporting TRUMP. Too much cock sucking and weakness from RINOS for the last 30 years. Lots of talking; lots of compromising--but meanwhile, the fucking Libtards get more and more of their hateful agenda accomplished.

So, again, FUCK THE RINO SCUM.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 22, 2022, 06:14:36 PM
From the very first post.  There's nothing more boneheaded than a foreigner deciding to lecture Americans on how to solve American politics....

You do seem to be a "special" case don't you? I start a thread, letting several posters respond before I give my own opinion. But you can't handle that apparently, an opinion on a gaming board, and a pretty balanced one too. Which version of Americans should I listen to in order to become American? The hippies? Oh wait that would be way too far to the American left (but typically American still). Bill Maher? Don't think so, he's funny but too high on weed. DeSantis? Isn't he from that state you just disparaged?  The "cowboys" in general? But just a sec, a lot of the typical cowboy outfit was actually of Mexican origin. A lot of wokeness is a mishmash too; some of it American in origin, some from other places. I happen to like America, my wife and I were the ones with the most 4th of July American flags out in our neighborhood when the general mood around was negative during the riots. Hell, I think you just convinced me to become a citizen.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 22, 2022, 06:20:17 PM
BTW, since I mentioned some people who have shifted political stance lately, and who try to bridge the gap so to speak, what do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on November 22, 2022, 07:40:18 PM
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.

They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted.  I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more.  War.

My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship.  All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.
The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.

In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.

Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.

For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 09:13:52 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

Don't worry, one of them made an exception for his personal friends.
But joking aside, yes the clique of boneheads took over the thread pretty fast.

Indeed. And it's not "to the left of GWBush" it's "to the left of Trump." These guys would think GW Bush is a RINO these days. Because he was a neocon who believed in a level of globalism and immigration and didn't think gay people were groomers by definition.


  LMAO.....GW was RIGHT of Trump in office.  Wow how short the memories....he OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE and waged wars at the drop of a hat.  He is an elitist and a globalist...but pretending he is left of trump is short memory retarded.

Right and Obama and Clinton both opposed gay marriage as well. However they didn't think gay people were grooming children.

Waging war is neither right nor left wing. Democrats also wage a lot of war.

You can call him whatever you want relative to Trump, but it's obvious anyone not on board with Trumpian politics is considered a RINO these days. A GW Bush supporter. like myself, is called a RINO. Right here in fact.

  The problem with that term RINO, is it is meaningless.  Republicans do not stand for shit, the past 3 decades bombing people into democracy and slow walking any uber left bullshit, but never pushing back.    If you supported GW, you are not a RINO, you are just an idiot.   I don't call GW anything I want, I just call it like it was and is.  Trump is LEFT of GW on almost everything, and he is called a right wing extremist (I guess having the audacity to think American leaders should put the needs of America and Americans first is nutty right wing bullshit).

He is 1) an extremist, and 2) to the right of center. Therefore he is a right winger who is an extremist. But he's not a right wing extremist in the sense his extremism isn't focused on right wing issues.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 22, 2022, 09:16:07 PM
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.

They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted.  I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more.  War.

My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship.  All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.
The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.

In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.

Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.

For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?

It's gonna be a civil war in the metaverse. Throwing words at each other and posturing like they're winning or losing something by declaring it to be so.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on November 22, 2022, 10:25:44 PM
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado.

For which no confirmed motive has yet been actually released to the public, which is telling given that politically motivated shooters tend to make that motive very clear before or during their attacks; much of the violence that does occur these days in the U.S. is the product of mental instability rather than political radicalization.

I've said before that I personally think it very unlikely that anything like an actual civil war could occur now in the States, certainly not on the model of the 1861-1865 war, because today's primary political polarization isn't between easily geographically separable political and economic entities; the primary divide is between urban and rural counties all across the country by socioeconomic class, neither side of which commands anything like an independent, organized and self-sufficient military force that could be easily turned against the opposition without major internal discord.

That said, there could certainly be significant disorganized violence and disruption (viz. most of 2020), but if it accomplished political objectives at all it would be through exploiting existing political structures, not overthrowing and rebuilding them. More disturbing would be if private paramilitary groups started engaging in active violent campaigns, like what happened in the Troubles in Northern Ireland, but it is a lot harder for such groups to get off the ground, gather materiel and financing and preserve secrecy in the 2020s than it was in the 1960s. It might still be possible with sufficient high-level government support from somewhere, but that, too, would be very difficult to conceal in this day and age, and I don't see any state government thinking its own position so economically or legally disenfranchised to consider that a risk worth taking.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on November 22, 2022, 11:07:20 PM
Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado.
There is no evidence that this was political violence. 
Shooter is nonbinary and a meth addict.
You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on November 23, 2022, 12:50:44 AM
BTW, since I mentioned some people who have shifted political stance lately, and who try to bridge the gap so to speak, what do you guys think of Tulsi Gabbard?

I liked her even back when Trump was early into his presidency, and hoped he would ask her to be in his cabinet.  I didn't want her to be President and still don't -- too many important issues I disagree with her on -- but I really liked her foreign policy ideas.  I think it's important for Presidents to hear opposing views and get pushback sometimes.  If I were President I'd look for a sensible liberal or two like her for my Cabinet.  Predictably, her fellow Democrats tore her a new one for even having a discussion with Trump about U.S. involvement in Syria.  At the time, she quite reasonably said that if Trump and Democrats could work toward a common goal, why shouldn't they?  But see, that's what happens when you try to "have a discussion" or "compromise" with Leftists -- they absolutely will not tolerate it, even coming from one of their own.  I don't blame her for leaving the Democrat party.  She was basically even blacklisted from most media; only Fox news would even have her on.  (Then libtards would call her a Nazi for appearing on Fox).   She had basically already been forced out of the Party anyway.  If Trump had made her Secretary of State that would have been fine with me.  She'd certainly have been better than a lot of the Neocon trash Trump surrounded himself with, like John Bolton.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on November 23, 2022, 01:14:40 AM
You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.

The 1968 riots after MLK's assassination was just one piece of violence of the 1960s, though. The summer 1967 race riots killed at least 85 people across dozens of cities. There were the 1964 Watts riots that had 34 deaths. There were dozens of other major riot incidents throughout the 1960s.

There were also a string of assassinations including JFK, MLK, and other notable figures. There was the Kent State shooting (technically in 1970 but clearly part of the period). Domestic terrorist groups including the KKK and others were highly active.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on November 23, 2022, 09:38:36 AM
Well, for a couple of reasons, this thread is part of the problem in American politics.  First, it treats compromise as if it is always the best resolution of a problem, when that is not always the case.  Let's say I want to rape your 4 daughters.  You don't want me to rape your daughters at all.  Is the proper resolution to this letting me rape two of them?  Sometimes the "middle" is just as wrong as the extremes.

Fifty years ago, democrats and republicans both believed in the American Dream.  They believed that America offered the best possible outcome for its citizens, compared to any other country or culture.  They were all American Exceptionalists.  They saw American culture and its ethos as a force for good in the world.  They just differed on how that ethos was to be spread, safeguarded, and extended to all of its citizens (and immigrants).  Both sides believed in the great melting pot.

Now, both sides do NOT share a common vision of what America should be.  One sides hates the American Dream, calls it racist, sexist, and bigoted, believes it is illegitimate and evil at its founding.  One side no longer believes that immigrants should be assimilated into American culture; in fact, they believe that immigrant cultures are equal to or better than American culture.  One side no longer accepts the institutions of America, the law, the self-reliance, the freedom of speech.  Are you suggesting that I should compromise with those who say I can't state what I see as a biological fact, because it might hurt the feelings of some dude who wishes he was a chick?  That's "reconciliation"?  Sounds a lot more like "capitulation"...


Exactly.  It used to be that the destination was the same, the sides just disagreed on the path to take to get there.  Now they don't even agree on the destination.

And yeah, it seems to be an assumption among the leftoids/ neocons here that compromise is always the best solution.  So let me ask them:  what compromises are YOU willing to make?  I think most conservatives like myself think that "compromises" intended to keep the states together, like the Electoral College and the Tenth Amendment are just fine.  It's libtards who are always attacking those things, not us.  They can't even stand the fact that abortion was simply handed back to the states for a decision (as our Bill of Rights would dictate) -- nope, they've gotta impose an authoritarian one-size-fits-all "solution" at the national level.

So let's hear it:  what compromises are the Democrats and neocons willing to make?  I've given you two examples of compromises that practically all conservatives agree with and the Left doesn't.  Would you people have compromised on slavery to keep the country together, as the Founding Fathers did?  How about the Three-Fifths Compromise?  I mean, those compromises did so much to preserve the national peace and maintain unity, you people must think they're great, right?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 23, 2022, 12:55:54 PM
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.

They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted.  I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more.  War.

My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship.  All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.
The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.

In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.

Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.

For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?

Greetings!

Well, I definitely see a kind of national divorce going on--a process--where like minded people separate and gather together with others that embrace their same ideology and world view. There's a flood of Californians pouring into the state to escape the shithole that California has become. I think politically and legally, you will see an increase of states basically asserting their autonomy and telling the federal government to get fucked. Yes, lots of legalese and hoop jumping, but individual states are simply not going to comply with Libtard bs on so many issues, especially when such measures are put upon by the federal government. So, legally, politically, there's an increase in separation. Socially, you see hordes of people fleeing Libtard states. I think you will see more separation through church, through work--people working at ideologically acceptable places--and consumer experiences. We see this right here, in action--companies and customers alike segregating based on political ideology, essentially.

I think of course you see separation also in dating circles--i.e. "Trumpers pass me by"; and "Liberals swipe left" and so on.

All of this is the strands of separation. In past generations, these things were largely foreign to most people. Now, these things are increasingly being seen as normal, and also as necessary and good.

I have doubts about any kind of full-fledged "Civil War". However, I do think there will be an increase in irregular disorganized violence, killings, riots, and more going on throughout the country. Certainly, there are many people that are unwilling to crush someone else's head in with a lead pipe based upon their ideology. Short of that, though, more and more people actively work to oppose the others. To resist them, to exclude them, to oppose them in every way. I think that Conservatives in general hold a deep respect for human life, and are hesitant to become violent. The Libtards are mentally unstable, however, and will increasingly become more and more violent. As the victims pile up, and the Libtards get crazy stupid, then you will see Conservatives embrace violence with more enthusiasm.

I think this is how things get going and will proceed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 23, 2022, 01:21:12 PM
Regarding reconciliation, I think one hopeful thing is that despite the rhetoric - we have had less political violence so far than in the 1960s. Still, there are events like the recent nightclub shooting in Colorado. I think in general, while people are worked up by clickbait, for the most part people's lives are fairly stable, and they are more inclined to tweet about violence than actually murder people - which is good. If one side is perceived to move into violence first, I think they will lose a lot of support.

They don’t think we’re wrong, they think we’re EVIL, so anything they do to us is warranted.  I was foolish to think otherwise, but no more.  War.

My progressive friends get the benefit of the doubt, thanks to years of friendship.  All the new ones I meet are presumed enemies unless they prove otherwise.
The Left are godless zombies that have embraced a globalist, Marxist philosophy. The Left--in whatever permutation or flavour--desire a society, country, and world, that is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to that of right-thinking Americans.

In such a situation, there is only one solution--WAR.

Either one side or the other wins. Whoever loses this struggle will be exterminated like cockroaches.

For either of you - how do you perceive the current situation progressing into active civil war?

Greetings!

Well, I definitely see a kind of national divorce going on--a process--where like minded people separate and gather together with others that embrace their same ideology and world view. There's a flood of Californians pouring into the state to escape the shithole that California has become. I think politically and legally, you will see an increase of states basically asserting their autonomy and telling the federal government to get fucked. Yes, lots of legalese and hoop jumping, but individual states are simply not going to comply with Libtard bs on so many issues, especially when such measures are put upon by the federal government. So, legally, politically, there's an increase in separation. Socially, you see hordes of people fleeing Libtard states. I think you will see more separation through church, through work--people working at ideologically acceptable places--and consumer experiences. We see this right here, in action--companies and customers alike segregating based on political ideology, essentially.

I think of course you see separation also in dating circles--i.e. "Trumpers pass me by"; and "Liberals swipe left" and so on.

All of this is the strands of separation. In past generations, these things were largely foreign to most people. Now, these things are increasingly being seen as normal, and also as necessary and good.

I have doubts about any kind of full-fledged "Civil War". However, I do think there will be an increase in irregular disorganized violence, killings, riots, and more going on throughout the country. Certainly, there are many people that are unwilling to crush someone else's head in with a lead pipe based upon their ideology. Short of that, though, more and more people actively work to oppose the others. To resist them, to exclude them, to oppose them in every way. I think that Conservatives in general hold a deep respect for human life, and are hesitant to become violent. The Libtards are mentally unstable, however, and will increasingly become more and more violent. As the victims pile up, and the Libtards get crazy stupid, then you will see Conservatives embrace violence with more enthusiasm.

I think this is how things get going and will proceed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, SHARK.  I've seen your last point summarized as, "leftists think of violence as a dial; conservatives as a switch."  The problem is that leftists, as they dial up the violence, see our restraint as weakness.  That's why they are always surprised (and outraged) when the helicopter rides start...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 23, 2022, 05:28:56 PM
I love that in a thread named reconciliation the majority of the forumites here came out to the conclusion that to accomplish everyone to the left of GWBush needs to be put against the wall and shot.

Yep, totally sane and well-adjusted adults here, that's for sure.

  Buddy, when you are telling me my daughter has to go into the locker room with dudes and you are for mutilating kids' genitals.....I wont say to shoot you, but I sure as hell do not think you and I are going to have enough common ground to be in the same nation.  The conclusion is not to shoot anyone, but it is to say there are issues so dividing there is going to be no middle ground or healing.  Amicable divorce is the best long term solution.

Amicable divorce would be fine, if leftists were reasonable. They have proven time and again that any inch you give them turns into a million miles of them taking and not being satisfied. They don't want live and let live. They want their way or cancellation.  I'm just not naive enough to think that politeness and reasonableness in the face of leftists would ever result in anything other than the complete destruction of traditional American society if they were to achieve what they claim to want - sex with children and animals, inundation of the country with illegal immigrants (and taxes paying for them to live free here while sending money back to their actual homes), massive censorship of anything other than Marxist beliefs, etc.  Leftists are even at the point of attacking each other and those that they claim to represent (such as attacking gay people who speak out against normalizing pedos, stifling people who were confused teens that had activists pressure them into having their sexual organs mutilated and now regret doing so, or cancelling black and brown people for daring to not be victims needing leftists to speak for them).

I stand by my earlier statements. If fucking communist leftists want to reconcile, then they can be the first to make the effort by ending attempts to normalize pedophilia, bestiality, and child transgenderism; by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants and antifa terrorists; ceasing to leftsplain for the "poor stupid brown and black people who can't fend for themselves", stopping their justification of gun violence in inner cities while simultaneously trying to take away 2A rights from legal gun owners, or by ceasing any and all activism whatsoever.  Otherwise, fuck 'em.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 23, 2022, 06:54:25 PM
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants

Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 23, 2022, 07:22:06 PM
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants

Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.

Absolutely not. 99% of them are here for economic reasons (or sneaking across for terrorism or crime purposes) rather than persecution. Those who come here *legally* (like my brother's and sister's in-laws from Cuba and Colombia) are essentially being told that they're a bunch of fools for following the law, applying for visas, waiting in line, learning English, applying for legal residency, and ultimately studying for and achieving citizenship. 

I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.

It's a *business* to smuggle illegals into the US. Overwhelmingly of people coming from central American countries who get robbed, raped, and beaten by Mexican border forces when they hit the southern/eastern border of Mexico.  How cruel are you that you want that to continue.

A tourist who knowingly overstayed your visa? Too fucking bad - hit the bricks.

Fleeing religious or political persecution? Apply at the embassy in your home country or go to a refugee camp to start with.

I travel *a lot* (and it's picked back up post plandemic). I see plenty of people trying to illegally enter other countries and they don't put up with it. Neither should we.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 23, 2022, 08:37:33 PM
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.

Disingenuous nonsense. There isn't any question that they are here illegally. We're not talking some racist ICE agents going into the racial enclaves of LA and rounding up legitimate immigrants and shipping them to Mexico, like the folks over a TBP imagine goes on every day. We by and large leave the illegal immigrants who manage to reach those and more or less integrate into society alone, as long as they keep their heads down and avoid getting into the legal system by committing crimes. We're talking people caught trying to cross the border illegally.

This is me having to prove you don't live in my house to be able to kick you out of my house when you broke in at night while I was sleeping... At my expense. While I give you room and board in the meantime.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on November 23, 2022, 09:41:09 PM
You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.

The 1968 riots after MLK's assassination was just one piece of violence of the 1960s, though. The summer 1967 race riots killed at least 85 people across dozens of cities. There were the 1964 Watts riots that had 34 deaths. There were dozens of other major riot incidents throughout the 1960s.

There were also a string of assassinations including JFK, MLK, and other notable figures. There was the Kent State shooting (technically in 1970 but clearly part of the period). Domestic terrorist groups including the KKK and others were highly active.
I was comparing the worst year of the 60's to the worst of the 20's.  And we've got 7 years to make the rest of the 60's look like child's play.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 23, 2022, 11:08:14 PM
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants

Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.

Absolutely not. 99% of them are here for economic reasons (or sneaking across for terrorism or crime purposes) rather than persecution. Those who come here *legally* (like my brother's and sister's in-laws from Cuba and Colombia) are essentially being told that they're a bunch of fools for following the law, applying for visas, waiting in line, learning English, applying for legal residency, and ultimately studying for and achieving citizenship. 

I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.

It's a *business* to smuggle illegals into the US. Overwhelmingly of people coming from central American countries who get robbed, raped, and beaten by Mexican border forces when they hit the southern/eastern border of Mexico.  How cruel are you that you want that to continue.

A tourist who knowingly overstayed your visa? Too fucking bad - hit the bricks.

Fleeing religious or political persecution? Apply at the embassy in your home country or go to a refugee camp to start with.

I travel *a lot* (and it's picked back up post plandemic). I see plenty of people trying to illegally enter other countries and they don't put up with it. Neither should we.

Nothing you said is a response to having access to an attorney
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 23, 2022, 11:09:56 PM
Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.

Disingenuous nonsense. There isn't any question that they are here illegally.

Except sometimes there is.

Quote
We're not talking some racist ICE agents going into the racial enclaves of LA and rounding up legitimate immigrants and shipping them to Mexico, like the folks over a TBP imagine goes on every day. We by and large leave the illegal immigrants who manage to reach those and more or less integrate into society alone, as long as they keep their heads down and avoid getting into the legal system by committing crimes. We're talking people caught trying to cross the border illegally.

This is me having to prove you don't live in my house to be able to kick you out of my house when you broke in at night while I was sleeping... At my expense. While I give you room and board in the meantime.

86% of likely voters disagree with your view on this. So tough shit. It's just an attorney. You can live it them getting access to an attorney.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 24, 2022, 04:18:39 AM
I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.

Actually, you're wrong on this, one nation is an even softer touch than the US: the UK. We have a natural boundary, the sea, which should prevent people simply rolling over the border at will. There's 30 miles of sea to cross from the European mainland even at the closest point.

We've had tens of thousands of illegal migrants (overwhelmingly young men of fighting age, most recenty the majority are from Albania) turning up every year. They get on little boats in French coastal towns, the French navy escorts them into our waters where the Royal Navy, Border Force or RNLI escorts them here. When they arrive they're put up in 4-star hotels (now some 5-star hotels), given free phones, 3 meals a day and cash.

Unsurprisingly, the places hosting all these groups of men are having many problems with them, which the authorities do their best to cover up.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 24, 2022, 07:21:08 AM
Except sometimes there is.

Again, disingenuous nonsense.

Let us be clear: When people talk about "the border crisis" and "illegal immigration" as political topics, you and I both know nobody is taking about edge cases like people fleeing religious persecution. Americans, even conservatives, have historically been receptive to that sort of immigration. Hell, Cuban refuges have been embraced better than most others because they are more clearly refugees fleeing oppression.

That is neither the sort of immigration people are talking about as apolitical issue, nor more than than a tiny fraction of it.

86% of likely voters disagree with your view on this. So tough shit. It's just an attorney. You can live it them getting access to an attorney.

We don't govern by polling.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 24, 2022, 10:38:58 AM
by stopping efforts to provide legal aid to illegal immigrants

Hey buddy, you're in the vast minority on that topic. You do, in fact, need to compromise on legal aid to illegal immigrants. 86% of likely voters in the United States support the government providing an attorney for illegal immigrants who cannot afford one. That's not them having a problem it's you. You live in a nation where people think those trying to emigrate to the U.S., even illegally, should have legal council if they cannot afford legal council to try and prove they're not here illegally or that deportation would be illegal.

Absolutely not. 99% of them are here for economic reasons (or sneaking across for terrorism or crime purposes) rather than persecution. Those who come here *legally* (like my brother's and sister's in-laws from Cuba and Colombia) are essentially being told that they're a bunch of fools for following the law, applying for visas, waiting in line, learning English, applying for legal residency, and ultimately studying for and achieving citizenship. 

I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.

It's a *business* to smuggle illegals into the US. Overwhelmingly of people coming from central American countries who get robbed, raped, and beaten by Mexican border forces when they hit the southern/eastern border of Mexico.  How cruel are you that you want that to continue.

A tourist who knowingly overstayed your visa? Too fucking bad - hit the bricks.

Fleeing religious or political persecution? Apply at the embassy in your home country or go to a refugee camp to start with.

I travel *a lot* (and it's picked back up post plandemic). I see plenty of people trying to illegally enter other countries and they don't put up with it. Neither should we.

Nothing you said is a response to having access to an attorney

It most certainly is. When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with, they won't need access to an attorney. When you see them illegally enter and capture them, they're caught red-handed and should be immediately deported - there is no need for an attorney until they get kicked out, when they can hire one at their own expense in their own countries. When you're here illegally beyond your visa, it's cut and dried. Your visa said x months, you stayed x+ months, no need for an attorney to try and argue that you should stay because you can't count the days.

You completely don't get that CBP has authority up to 50 (I think it is 50) miles inland from point of entry to come grab your ass without any recourse, do you? Why should a US citizen be subject to this without being allowed to demand an attorney but illegals should just be allowed to wander about?

What's right is right. Illegals entering the US (or any country) is not right.  Shipping illegals to Martha's Vineyard perfectly proved what a bunch of hypocrites wealthy leftist cunts are when they called the national guard to lock them up at a military base when they all have huge homes (in some cases, multiple rental properties) that they could let them stay in. Just admit that leftists love to virtue signal about caring about the less fortunate without actually doing anything to help the less fortunate - and when they experienced what people in Arizona, Texas, etc. experience on a daily basis, they fucking panicked
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 24, 2022, 10:39:44 AM
I don't care that it's not nice to not allow illegals to enter (and not pursue them when they are found here). No other nation anywhere in the world tolerates this the way the US does. None of them. And that's the right of *every* sovereign nation to secure their borders. Period.

Actually, you're wrong on this, one nation is an even softer touch than the US: the UK. We have a natural boundary, the sea, which should prevent people simply rolling over the border at will. There's 30 miles of sea to cross from the European mainland even at the closest point.

We've had tens of thousands of illegal migrants (overwhelmingly young men of fighting age, most recenty the majority are from Albania) turning up every year. They get on little boats in French coastal towns, the French navy escorts them into our waters where the Royal Navy, Border Force or RNLI escorts them here. When they arrive they're put up in 4-star hotels (now some 5-star hotels), given free phones, 3 meals a day and cash.

Unsurprisingly, the places hosting all these groups of men are having many problems with them, which the authorities do their best to cover up.

I stand corrected. I forgot about the Muzzie grooming gangs in the UK...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: rpgSeeker on November 24, 2022, 01:08:43 PM
I don't think reconciliation is possible no.

Where would the left even start?

Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?

Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 24, 2022, 01:37:05 PM
I stand corrected. I forgot about the Muzzie grooming gangs in the UK...

Not quite. Whilst there's little doubt these newest arrivals engage in the same activities, grooming gangs have been going since the 1970s, in every single town and city with a sizeable Muslim population.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 24, 2022, 01:46:00 PM
I don't think reconciliation is possible no.

Where would the left even start?

Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?

Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.

But you just hit the nail on the head.  Tulsi Gabbard is, to the left, worse than a traitor, because she can clearly articulate to the public just exactly how fucked up their agenda is.

But let's be clear.  It isn't that there are all these leftists who organically just want to be activists for bledding-heart causes. They are useful idiots for a ChiCom (primarily) communist agenda.  The CCP owns many US politicians and business leaders - across the political spectrum.  Ask yourself who benefits from an agenda that proposes that sexually confused teens take hormone blockers and chop off body parts and don't engage in traditional gender roles. Ask yourself who benefits from having a citizenry divided amongst itself. Or that allows an unchecked horde of non-loyal immigrants. Or that allows foreign holding companies to buy real estate and businesses, including farmland and facilities in the food and energy sectors? How many other "10% to the big guy" criminal activities are going on that haven't come to light?  Why did a group of both Dem and Rep senators try to stifle the SEC investigation of FTX?  How many pols of both parties continue to miraculous beat the S&P 500? Follow the money.

How many other countries tolerate any of this?  Go ahead and try dissenting in China and see how quickly you end up in a reeducation prison.

We are a nation divided, led by an administrative state that is not loyal to the principles the country was founded on, and society is in moral decay.  The US *is* the Roman Empire under Caligula and Nero.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 24, 2022, 01:48:41 PM
The CCP also benefits from the mRNA jabs ruining the health of your service personnel.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 01:59:19 PM
Except sometimes there is.

Again, disingenuous nonsense.

Let us be clear: When people talk about "the border crisis" and "illegal immigration" as political topics, you and I both know nobody is taking about edge cases like people fleeing religious persecution. Americans, even conservatives, have historically been receptive to that sort of immigration. Hell, Cuban refuges have been embraced better than most others because they are more clearly refugees fleeing oppression.

That is neither the sort of immigration people are talking about as apolitical issue, nor more than than a tiny fraction of it.

86% of likely voters disagree with your view on this. So tough shit. It's just an attorney. You can live it them getting access to an attorney.

We don't govern by polling.

No but voters have massive influence in what politicians do. It's the basis of the system.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 02:00:36 PM
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with

Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 24, 2022, 02:28:25 PM
No but voters have massive influence in what politicians do. It's the basis of the system.

Hahahaha! This is quite possibly the most naive drivel I've seen on this forum.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 24, 2022, 02:57:53 PM
No but voters have massive influence in what politicians do. It's the basis of the system.

Not really. Voters have massive influence on what politicians say they will do. That's not at all the same thing.

And that's assuming poling is accurate, a dubious proposition at best.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 24, 2022, 03:19:36 PM
Not really. Voters have massive influence on what politicians say they will do. That's not at all the same thing.

And that's assuming poling is accurate, a dubious proposition at best.

Polling is designed to shape public opinion, not measure it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 24, 2022, 03:29:57 PM
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with

Good luck with that.

It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.

We could easily divert funding from the 35 identical social programs to promote transgender story hour for 5 year olds administered by a dozen different federal agencies - take that money and build fences, staff patrols, and build holding pens.

Instead, we get leftists in government and media decrying CBP agents on horseback rounding up illegals because they see reins being properly used to control horses and can't not think that they're whipping black people.  They make it about racism because they'd otherwise have to confront the fact that their agenda results in cruelty by border patrol of other countries like Mexico and Honduras or coyotes or drug cartels on the journey to the US.

When Dems don't virtue signal that "the border is open," economic migrants don't risk life and limb.

But you want to continue being cruel to poor brown people.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 03:35:29 PM
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with

Good luck with that.

It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.

So why did Trump fail at it?

Also noteworthy - other countries usually don't attract as many people to them. YOU may not believe in the American Dream but many do. It's really quite easy to keep people out of Venezuela when people don't want to emigrate there.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on November 24, 2022, 07:07:31 PM
You sort of ignore the political violence of 2020 riots which saw 25 people killed, thousands injured and billions of dollars in damages
while the worst violence of the 1968 riots which saw 39 people killed, thousands injured, and less damage.
They are quite comparable.

The 1968 riots after MLK's assassination was just one piece of violence of the 1960s, though. The summer 1967 race riots killed at least 85 people across dozens of cities. There were the 1964 Watts riots that had 34 deaths. There were dozens of other major riot incidents throughout the 1960s.

There were also a string of assassinations including JFK, MLK, and other notable figures. There was the Kent State shooting (technically in 1970 but clearly part of the period). Domestic terrorist groups including the KKK and others were highly active.
I was comparing the worst year of the 60's to the worst of the 20's.  And we've got 7 years to make the rest of the 60's look like child's play.

I don't think that the worst race riots of a decade are a good measure of overall political violence. The U.S. has periodically had race riots since the early 1800s. Notably, the 1992 L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict had 63 deaths, which is a much higher body count than either the 1968 or 2020 riots. However, I wouldn't say that the 1990s were the decade with the most political violence.

Trying to compare apples to apples, I think the period of 1962 to 1972 had much greater political violence than the period from 2012 to 2022. Obviously, future developments in the 2020s could change the picture - but I think the record so far shows significantly less violence in the current period.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 24, 2022, 09:25:53 PM
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with

Good luck with that.

It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.

So why did Trump fail at it?

Also noteworthy - other countries usually don't attract as many people to them. YOU may not believe in the American Dream but many do. It's really quite easy to keep people out of Venezuela when people don't want to emigrate there.

Who says he failed? When he was in office, illegal immigration declined because of the deterrent effect of not just letting them in without even trying to keep them out.

As to your assertion that "we get so many that we shouldn't even bother trying to control our borders" - how about go fuck yourself.  By that attitude, you should en masse encourage every homeless drug addict in Cali to come and walk in your front door, rape your wife, and steal all your worldly possessions - while you pay them and give them room and board to do so. After all, if enough random strangers show up, why bother locking your front door, right?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: The Spaniard on November 25, 2022, 10:44:14 AM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 25, 2022, 12:48:36 PM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

I'll continue saying it. We're at where we're at because we conservatives have been overly-tolerant. If a few more Marxist college professors had been drafted to go fight in Vietnam, they'd likely *not* be Marxists when they returned. Instead we allowed them to proliferate on college campuses and spread their disease to multiple generations of college students.

The same goes for tolerance in the public square - a few more leftists leaving a "rally" with a broken nose or missing a tooth and we wouldn't be here dealing with antifa terrorists.

Civility in the face of leftist tyranny is nothing more than cowardice.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: The Spaniard on November 25, 2022, 01:14:53 PM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

I'll continue saying it. We're at where we're at because we conservatives have been overly-tolerant. If a few more Marxist college professors had been drafted to go fight in Vietnam, they'd likely *not* be Marxists when they returned. Instead we allowed them to proliferate on college campuses and spread their disease to multiple generations of college students.

The same goes for tolerance in the public square - a few more leftists leaving a "rally" with a broken nose or missing a tooth and we wouldn't be here dealing with antifa terrorists.

Civility in the face of leftist tyranny is nothing more than cowardice.

Agreed, except for the last part.  I think it's apathy rather than cowardice in most cases.  We're all busy doing other things, and just take the time to shake our heads at these mutts instead of taking the time to confront them.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on November 25, 2022, 01:26:11 PM
I don't think that the worst race riots of a decade are a good measure of overall political violence.
No you don't get to take the 2020 race riots off the table as they are overtly political.
The 2020 riots were fanned, funded and owned by white leftists.



Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on November 25, 2022, 02:39:16 PM
I don't think that the worst race riots of a decade are a good measure of overall political violence.
No you don't get to take the 2020 race riots off the table as they are overtly political.
The 2020 riots were fanned, funded and owned by white leftists.

Is your claim that the 2020 race riots were political, but the 1992 race riots and 1968 race riots were not?

If not, I don't see how this bears on the relation between the overall political violence of the last ten years compared to the 1960s.

In general, my point is that there were high levels of political violence in the period of 1962 to 1972, greater than in the past decade. We had a lot of extremism, terrorism, and assassination. However, we got through that and continued to function as a democracy, without any movement towards civil war. I think "de-escalation" is probably a better word for the later trend rather than "reconciliation", but the point is that the levels of political violence and extremism reduced.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 25, 2022, 02:52:42 PM
When you don't allow illegals to enter to begin with

Good luck with that.

It requires nothing more than the political will to enforce the law and the resources to do it. Other countries manage to do this with no problem.

So why did Trump fail at it?

Also noteworthy - other countries usually don't attract as many people to them. YOU may not believe in the American Dream but many do. It's really quite easy to keep people out of Venezuela when people don't want to emigrate there.

Who says he failed? When he was in office, illegal immigration declined because of the deterrent effect of not just letting them in without even trying to keep them out.

As to your assertion that "we get so many that we shouldn't even bother trying to control our borders" - how about go fuck yourself.  By that attitude, you should en masse encourage every homeless drug addict in Cali to come and walk in your front door, rape your wife, and steal all your worldly possessions - while you pay them and give them room and board to do so. After all, if enough random strangers show up, why bother locking your front door, right?

There is zero implication we shouldn't try to stop illegal immigration because we get so many people trying to come here.

Even for you that was a moronic conclusion to draw.

Under Trump he had the political will to stop illegal immigration but he largely failed to stop it. He slightly slowed it for some years at best. So it takes more than mere will and it is harder to do for a nation like the US where lots of people want to come here than it is for a nation where few want to go there.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on November 25, 2022, 02:56:28 PM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.

It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.

But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 26, 2022, 05:41:29 AM
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?

Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/z4m21k/whats_your_political_alignment/)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on November 26, 2022, 07:57:09 AM
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?

Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/z4m21k/whats_your_political_alignment/)
Which is why I always truthfully tell people my political philosophy is Subsidiarity. It’s fun because so few on any side have even heard of it so they rarely have pre-canned answers ready for it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 26, 2022, 10:46:40 AM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.

It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.

But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Talk about oblivious to history!  Every time a "moderate" is in power, they give the left everything they want.  Name the great moderates in American politics.  McCain?  Romney?  GHW Bush?  How did they push back on the left?  They just headed left more slowly.

The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 26, 2022, 11:04:39 AM
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

Well, look. It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 26, 2022, 06:21:46 PM
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

Well, look. It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.  If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally.  Period.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on November 27, 2022, 12:04:35 PM
It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.

In my experience, I find extremists are more often logically inconsistent. I know a number of people who will twist themselves into logical knots in order to justify their extreme positions, especially to justify hypocritical condemnation of the other side. i.e. When we do X, then it's justified. When they do X, then it shows how evil they are.

That said, most people of any leaning are logically inconsistent. Human beings don't primarily work on logic. I respect those uncommon individuals who are more open-minded and are willing to listen to logic, but I don't expect it - and I know many people who aren't logically consistent whom I would consider good.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 27, 2022, 01:53:04 PM
It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.

In my experience, I find extremists are more often logically inconsistent. I know a number of people who will twist themselves into logical knots in order to justify their extreme positions, especially to justify hypocritical condemnation of the other side. i.e. When we do X, then it's justified. When they do X, then it shows how evil they are.

That said, most people of any leaning are logically inconsistent. Human beings don't primarily work on logic. I respect those uncommon individuals who are more open-minded and are willing to listen to logic, but I don't expect it - and I know many people who aren't logically consistent whom I would consider good.

Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant.  You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility.  Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion.  It's not about you.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 27, 2022, 02:35:40 PM
Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant.  You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility.  Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion.  It's not about you.

Let me show you this nice mirror over here in the corner...

Also...

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.  If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally.  Period.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Also, you, about 4 months ago.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on November 27, 2022, 02:54:19 PM
Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant.  You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility.  Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion.  It's not about you.

Let me show you this nice mirror over here in the corner...

Also...

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.  If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally.  Period.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Also, you, about 4 months ago.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have a clue what "foolish" is... which is fitting...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 27, 2022, 03:36:06 PM
It's pretty obvious that you don't have a clue what "foolish" is... which is fitting...

Yes, that is the disconnect here.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 27, 2022, 11:00:40 PM
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on November 27, 2022, 11:55:32 PM
The problem with the conservative approach to moderates is that they still need to sway undecided voters to win elections.  All the bluster and indignity in the world will only drive them the other way.  Unless you're willing to dispense with democracy at which point you're not anything I'd support.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 28, 2022, 06:57:19 AM
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.

Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".

The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.

If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.

Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.

On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.

If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.

As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.

Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".

Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on November 28, 2022, 11:32:14 AM
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.

Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".

The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.

If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.

Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.

On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.

If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.

As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.

Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".

Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.

I agree with basically all of this. As a side note I was very apolitical in my younger days, I just couldn't stand politics (and there's still a bit of that in me) but now it feels a bit like I have been forced into it. People just assuming that I agree with a certain point of view because I work at the university for instance. I agree that the abortion issue is one point where people will never, well, agree.

As far as moderates go, I think we should note that they could be of various kinds: they could be in a "gray zone" on some issues ("I believe we should cut down on carbon emissions gradually, but not so much as to crash the economy") or they could be rather extreme on different right wing vs left wing issues ("I believe that abortion is murder, and I also believe we will all be doomed if we don't stop carbon emissions now", this is a rare combination, but I have seen it). None of this is self-contradictory, or less worthy of consideration compared to someone who follows a certain set of beliefs associated with a specific group. You could actually argue that they are more worthy of consideration because they show that they are not just following the "flock" as a bunch of sheep (Tolstoy has a character in Anna Karenina, who is described as wearing his opinions like others wear clothes, just following whatever is the latest fashion. Oh boy does this fit a lot of people I know). 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 28, 2022, 03:41:11 PM
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.

Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".

The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.

If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.

Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.

On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.

If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.

As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.

Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".

Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.

Greetings!

Well said, Bruwulf! I sympathize entirely. ;D

I suppose the issue of "Politics" is paradoxical. On one hand, it can all seem like a fool's errand, and is ultimately pointless, usually accomplishing little. On the other hand, so much of politics is acutely relevant with all kinds of significant ramifications and consequences. even today, for myself, it generates a compelling attention and interest.

When I was younger, I was also avidly into politics. My Minor in college was, *laughing*--Political Science, International Relations, as a specialty. I used to read the newspaper daily, the WSJ, listen to political talk shows on the radio, and engage in political debates and discussions at school on virtually a daily basis. I also bought many political books!

*Laughing* Nowadays, I'm not sure most of all that is really worth all the time, effort, money, and energy.

Nowadays, I tend to take politics in *limited doses*.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 28, 2022, 07:12:16 PM
The problem with the conservative approach to moderates is that they still need to sway undecided voters to win elections.  All the bluster and indignity in the world will only drive them the other way.  Unless you're willing to dispense with democracy at which point you're not anything I'd support.

Y'all just need to install me as your global benevolent dictator.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on November 29, 2022, 12:14:41 AM
So, I was talking to a teacher at my child's school this one time and I said, "if I was dictator I'd do things differently."  And she said, "but you'd be a benevolant dictator, right?"  And I said, "no, they'd have to kill me, I'd be a horrible tyrant.  There are no benevolant dictators."

True story, I'm a really pompus ass.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on November 29, 2022, 01:55:45 PM
So, I was talking to a teacher at my child's school this one time and I said, "if I was dictator I'd do things differently."  And she said, "but you'd be a benevolant dictator, right?"  And I said, "no, they'd have to kill me, I'd be a horrible tyrant.  There are no benevolant dictators."

What about Cincinnatus?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on November 29, 2022, 05:11:07 PM
A malevolent dictator who you can hold accountable is superior to a faceless bureaucratic organization which pretends to be democratic and won't ever take responsibility for its own actions.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 29, 2022, 06:05:31 PM
So, I was talking to a teacher at my child's school this one time and I said, "if I was dictator I'd do things differently."  And she said, "but you'd be a benevolant dictator, right?"  And I said, "no, they'd have to kill me, I'd be a horrible tyrant.  There are no benevolant dictators."

True story, I'm a really pompus ass.

Horrible to whom?  I'm sure to the radical leftists and the globalists, I'd be horrible because I wouldn't tolerate their bullshit.  Antifa would be lying dead in the streets en masse. Borders would be secured. The Fed would be dissolved and we'd be back on a gold standard. No money laundering via foreign aide would occur. Elected officials would be forcibly retired after 2 terms. Criminals, with clear and undisputable evidence of wrongdoing, would be made an example of. The intelligence community would be destroyed and rebuilt under Congressional and Court checks and balances with *all* of the secrets that are secret only to avoid embarrassment to politicians or CEOs being exposed for everyone to see - including all of the names in Gislaine Maxwell's little black book. Lobbyists would be publicly crucified. Pedophiles would be thrown in wood chippers. We would have a strong military focused on defense and freedom of navigation rather than meddling regime change. Greta Thunberg would undergo deprogramming. The Southern Law Poverty Center would live up to it's name by having all of its funding confiscated. Universities would no longer receive public funding - tuition would be free but come from their endowments.

Did I miss anything in this list?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on November 29, 2022, 08:18:38 PM
I used to think I was a libertarian, then a staunch conservative, but now I realize I’m actually an anarchist who absolutely is tired of being told what to do by dumbasses who can’t decide their pronouns on a given day. The only solution in the US involves woodchippers, ropes, free helicopter rides, and lots of AR-15s. Politicians are a monolith who pretend to be on a “side”, when really they’re only interested in lining their own pockets. DC can get nuked into glass and that would do wonders for fixing a lot of the problems.

Thankfully, all this COVID bullshit revealed who is actually an enemy combatant, and I’m honestly surprised who some of those people are. I, for one, welcome our inevitable Balkanization.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on November 29, 2022, 09:09:30 PM
What about Cincinnatus?

The position of "Dictator" in ancient Rome was different than the present usage.  I suppose I should have said "autocrat.'

Still, I think the greatest threat to modern society is the growing disillusionment with democracy and the growing anger on both sides.  As far as I'm concerned, anarchy is only a prelude to autocracy and communism has been tried many times and failed shortly thereafter each time.  Socialism seems to work okay in a thriving economy but cannot survive ill fortune without constant bailouts from Germany and the UK.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 29, 2022, 10:16:02 PM
What about Cincinnatus?

The position of "Dictator" in ancient Rome was different than the present usage.  I suppose I should have said "autocrat.'

Still, I think the greatest threat to modern society is the growing disillusionment with democracy and the growing anger on both sides.  As far as I'm concerned, anarchy is only a prelude to autocracy and communism has been tried many times and failed shortly thereafter each time.  Socialism seems to work okay in a thriving economy but cannot survive ill fortune without constant bailouts from Germany and the UK.

It isn't disillusionment with democracy that I have - it's enragement that the collective "we" have allowed it to be hijacked by a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers who all deserve to be killed if they're unwilling or unable to act morally and ethically.

There are no "democrats" or "republicans." No "liberals" or "conservatives.". There are only the just and moral surrounded on all sides by the immoral and unethical.

When you have people performing mental gymnastics to try and claim that the act of physically removing a fetus that is formed enough that the end result is a pile of tiny pieces fully recognizeable as dismembered body parts is somehow *not* murder.

When you have people claiming that an enshrined right to be armed (the words "shall not be infringed" need no explanation) should be restricted.

When you have people you've elected to represent your wishes do the exact opposite.

When you have people in positions of moral authority engaging in the very practices in private that they condemn in public.

When you have people put in positions to administer the law equally do otherwise.

When you have officials whose loyalty can be bought.

When you have people actually arguing that a group of violent rioters have more of a right to be in a public place while armed than the person they tried to murder.

When you have people who have a complete lack of awareness of how society and government are *supposed* to be operating

We need a "great reset" - but not of the kind espoused by globalists.  We need to reset government to its original size, scope, and limits of functionality. We need a reset of who does and doesn't deserve the rights of citizenship by birth. We need a reset of what is taught in school and what constitutes proficiency in that body of knowledge.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on November 30, 2022, 01:50:07 AM
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.

Unfortunately, people don't really start to question or rise up until they are hungry and it is too late.  Still, radical conservatives alienating undecided voters is why we keep losing these battles.  Scary people scare people for some reason.  I'm sick of losing because conservatism is so full of reactionary loudmouths that virtually hand the election to the liberals.

Yes libralism has its scary reactionaries but the liberal media tends to minimize that for some reason or another.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on November 30, 2022, 06:55:51 AM
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.

Unfortunately, people don't really start to question or rise up until they are hungry and it is too late.  Still, radical conservatives alienating undecided voters is why we keep losing these battles.  Scary people scare people for some reason.  I'm sick of losing because conservatism is so full of reactionary loudmouths that virtually hand the election to the liberals.

Yes libralism has its scary reactionaries but the liberal media tends to minimize that for some reason or another.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that your "Democrats" win elections because they cheat massively.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on November 30, 2022, 07:36:54 AM
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.

Your terms are acceptable.

But seriously, I think you vastly overestimate the resolve most of these leftists actually have. Since they stand for nothing, they typically capitulate almost instantly to any sort of legitimate threat. That CHAZ nonsense where the rapper took over in less than a day with a single rifle is a good example. Also I don't think they realize the people they want to fuck with have restrained themselves for a long time now, and when the breaking point is reached it'll be hell on earth.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 30, 2022, 08:34:27 AM
I'm afraid you'll have to accept a very high body count to achieve that.

Your terms are acceptable.

But seriously, I think you vastly overestimate the resolve most of these leftists actually have. Since they stand for nothing, they typically capitulate almost instantly to any sort of legitimate threat. That CHAZ nonsense where the rapper took over in less than a day with a single rifle is a good example. Also I don't think they realize the people they want to fuck with have restrained themselves for a long time now, and when the breaking point is reached it'll be hell on earth.

Greetings!

BRAD!!!! Wecome back, my friend! It is very good to see you again! More than a few members here have missed you!

I hope you and your family are good, and that you enjoyed Thanksgiving!

As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 30, 2022, 08:45:04 AM
Greetings!

If Conservatives don't wake the fuck up and get hard-core radical, then they deserve to choke on shit. The country is in peril from the fucking degenerate Libtard Commies precisely because we have had far too many years where the nice, polite, William F. Buckley type Conservatives have been in charge. Far too many of those people drank the fucking Kool-aid and became RINOS. Far too many of them are entirely too willing to compromise with the Communists and bend over to get fucked in the ass as long as they are allowed to keep their "Civil and Polite" reputation.

The Libtards *want* you to keep being nice, and civil, and polite, and so *reasonable*. That's a large part of how the fucking Communists have been able to gain victory after victory in this country. Too many conservatives being more committed to "compromise" and being nice and reasonable--instead of crushing the goddamn Communists and the hordes of degenerates.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on November 30, 2022, 09:44:35 AM
So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up?  Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence?  What are you two?  If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely.  If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 30, 2022, 10:05:40 AM

As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.

See, that's where I get off the train, when we start talking about purging the "degenerates". Because that's a nice little ambiguous word that doesn't specifically mean very much, specifically, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who uses it, and, bluntly, I have no interest in being purged. Because I know to many people the fact I'm gay makes me a degenerate. No matter how much I stand up against the excesses of the so-called "gay culture", no matter how much I refuse to be a part of that culture, no matter how much I've been 'disowned' time and time again by that culture... including by a few high-profile TBP posters back when I used to post there, being decried as "heteronormative" and a sellout and a traitor... no matter any of that, I know I'm still viewed as a degenerate for not wanting to crawl in the ovens, or at best go back to hiding and fearing for my life and career lest anyone find out.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on November 30, 2022, 10:58:13 AM
Greetings!

BRAD!!!! Wecome back, my friend! It is very good to see you again! More than a few members here have missed you!

I hope you and your family are good, and that you enjoyed Thanksgiving!

As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, as stated somewhere else self-imposed hiatus so I could finish up my dissertation and graduate. I think I'm officially done with school forever...

So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up?  Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence?  What are you two?  If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely.  If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.

I never said they can't produce "suicidal radicals". They have lots of those. But that is a far cry from the armies of Bolsheviks you're obliquely referencing, and you seem to forget Muricans love their guns. We haven't lost anything yet, this has just gotten started. RE: moral paragons...pretending to have some sort of superiority because you won't engage the enemy on their terms is idiotic. They're setting the rules of the game, so I have zero issue playing along.

See, that's where I get off the train, when we start talking about purging the "degenerates". Because that's a nice little ambiguous word that doesn't specifically mean very much, specifically, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who uses it, and, bluntly, I have no interest in being purged. Because I know to many people the fact I'm gay makes me a degenerate. No matter how much I stand up against the excesses of the so-called "gay culture", no matter how much I refuse to be a part of that culture, no matter how much I've been 'disowned' time and time again by that culture... including by a few high-profile TBP posters back when I used to post there, being decried as "heteronormative" and a sellout and a traitor... no matter any of that, I know I'm still viewed as a degenerate for not wanting to crawl in the ovens, or at best go back to hiding and fearing for my life and career lest anyone find out.

Are you actively grooming children? Do you advocate pedophilia? Are you murdering unborn children? Everyone is a sinner, but some people are irredeemable, and that's where we're at right now.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 30, 2022, 11:24:09 AM
So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up?  Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence?  What are you two?  If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely.  If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.

One can be a moral paragon while still stacking bodies.  There is a vast quantity of people who just want to be left the fuck alone. The left continues to intrude upon them. *Many* of them are combat veterans.

I'll just put this little quote here since it nicely sums up how this'll go once the gloves come off and the non-RINO conservatives finally responded to leftists calling for violence and threatening riots if they don't get their way.

"What is the number of veterans in this country? I mean, it’s gotta be more than a million. There are so many people in this country that really understand violence, and they’re not the ones calling for violence. They’re not the “punch a Nazi” people. The people that really understand violence, that have seen violence, that have committed violence for their country, those are the motherfuckers that you break glass in case of war. You need them and people don’t understand that. These people running around, calling for violence, calling for revolution; you are going to open a door that you can never close. And when those soldiers come pouring our of that door to defend what they think is an attack on their freedoms and their country, you’re fucked." - Joe Rogan
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 30, 2022, 11:52:24 AM

As for your commentary, yes, I agree. Those terms are acceptable. Increasingly, the country needs to be cleansed if the Republic is to even have a chance at survival and potential recovery. Our unique American civilization itself is threatened by these degenerates.

See, that's where I get off the train, when we start talking about purging the "degenerates". Because that's a nice little ambiguous word that doesn't specifically mean very much, specifically, doesn't mean the same thing to everyone who uses it, and, bluntly, I have no interest in being purged. Because I know to many people the fact I'm gay makes me a degenerate. No matter how much I stand up against the excesses of the so-called "gay culture", no matter how much I refuse to be a part of that culture, no matter how much I've been 'disowned' time and time again by that culture... including by a few high-profile TBP posters back when I used to post there, being decried as "heteronormative" and a sellout and a traitor... no matter any of that, I know I'm still viewed as a degenerate for not wanting to crawl in the ovens, or at best go back to hiding and fearing for my life and career lest anyone find out.

This is a "I'll know it when I see it" test regarding degenerates. 

For example, when you have gay and lesbian people who get cancelled for calling out the grooming of children and the normalization of  pedophilia, you know that they are not degenerates and the people they are calling out are degenerates.

It isn't the "I wanna make sweet sweet man-love with my sex slave wearing leather in the privacy of my home or in a membership sex dungeon" that is the problem. It's the flaunting that activity in front of children on a public city street or encouraging children to try dressing in drag and dancing for money that is the problem. 

That is - whether you are gay, straight, trans and you want to engage in any type of adult activity in privacy that doesn't involve non-consent (kids, animals, adults who can't provide consent), have at it. I don't care if you're into S&M, group sex, or boring vanilla huggin-and-a-kissin. You're doing it in private with others who also want to.  It's the moment you try to flamboyantly expose everyone else to what is intended to be private that it becomes a problem for most people.  And *that* is the crux of the issue - the activist element amongst the LGBTQ don't respect boundaries.

Here's a little thought experiment: would your opinion of a married hetero couple with a couple of kids who lead a "typical" life change if you knew that they preferred kinky sex in private? Most people would say yes (moreso out of jealousy that that weren't having as much fun). But you generally aren't aware of their sex lives precisely because they don't throw it out for everyone to see.  The same holds true of gay or trans people who don't feel the need to announce their sexual activities to the world.

It isn't that someone is gay or straight or trans. It is that someone who is mentally ill in thinking that sexualizing children is normal while simultaneously needing to be an attention whore.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on November 30, 2022, 02:27:20 PM
So what you're saying is that we've lost and will continue to lose because you've given up?  Because you don't have the stones to keep fighting and now insist on resorting to violence?  What are you two?  If you think the left isn't capable of producing suicidal radicals you didn't follow the rise of communism in the twentieth century very closely.  If the right wants to win we need to clean up our act and be the moral paragons we tell ourselves we are when we're posing in front of the bathroom mirror.

One can be a moral paragon while still stacking bodies.  There is a vast quantity of people who just want to be left the fuck alone. The left continues to intrude upon them. *Many* of them are combat veterans.

I'll just put this little quote here since it nicely sums up how this'll go once the gloves come off and the non-RINO conservatives finally responded to leftists calling for violence and threatening riots if they don't get their way.

"What is the number of veterans in this country? I mean, it’s gotta be more than a million. There are so many people in this country that really understand violence, and they’re not the ones calling for violence. They’re not the “punch a Nazi” people. The people that really understand violence, that have seen violence, that have committed violence for their country, those are the motherfuckers that you break glass in case of war. You need them and people don’t understand that. These people running around, calling for violence, calling for revolution; you are going to open a door that you can never close. And when those soldiers come pouring our of that door to defend what they think is an attack on their freedoms and their country, you’re fucked." - Joe Rogan

Greetings!

Excellent quote there, 3catcircus!

Indeed, our country is in danger of being entirely overthrown and transformed beyond recognition into a hideous vision of degeneracy and Marxist tyranny.

People need to wake the fuck up and resist the degenerate, Marxist scum.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on November 30, 2022, 03:13:45 PM
This is a "I'll know it when I see it" test regarding degenerates. 

For example, when you have gay and lesbian people who get cancelled for calling out the grooming of children and the normalization of  pedophilia, you know that they are not degenerates and the people they are calling out are degenerates.

It isn't the "I wanna make sweet sweet man-love with my sex slave wearing leather in the privacy of my home or in a membership sex dungeon" that is the problem. It's the flaunting that activity in front of children on a public city street or encouraging children to try dressing in drag and dancing for money that is the problem. 

That is - whether you are gay, straight, trans and you want to engage in any type of adult activity in privacy that doesn't involve non-consent (kids, animals, adults who can't provide consent), have at it. I don't care if you're into S&M, group sex, or boring vanilla huggin-and-a-kissin. You're doing it in private with others who also want to.  It's the moment you try to flamboyantly expose everyone else to what is intended to be private that it becomes a problem for most people.  And *that* is the crux of the issue - the activist element amongst the LGBTQ don't respect boundaries.

Here's a little thought experiment: would your opinion of a married hetero couple with a couple of kids who lead a "typical" life change if you knew that they preferred kinky sex in private? Most people would say yes (moreso out of jealousy that that weren't having as much fun). But you generally aren't aware of their sex lives precisely because they don't throw it out for everyone to see.  The same holds true of gay or trans people who don't feel the need to announce their sexual activities to the world.

It isn't that someone is gay or straight or trans. It is that someone who is mentally ill in thinking that sexualizing children is normal while simultaneously needing to be an attention whore.

The problem, and this touches on something Brad mentioned, is that, well... you're talking some sort of flexible boundaries.

Brad asked, "am I grooming children?" I would say, absolutely not! I'm strongly against it, and have spoken about it many, many times.

However...

Flaunting it in public? Do you mean, do I walk down the street in a leather gimp suit with my boyfriend on a leash in puppy gear, or whatever the fuck that bald Biden admin freak that was in the news for stealing a woman's luggage did? No. I find the whole "pride" scene to be to be repulsive, having long outlived any actual purpose it served beyond being some sort of kinky mardi gras, and the fact that people suggest taking kids there is disgusting to me.

I'd be right there with y'all to get rid of that sort of shit. I think kink needs to be kept between adults, and preferably in private.

Or do you mean by "flaunting it in public" kissing my boyfriend when we part, or holding his hand while we watch a movie in the theater? Because there are people who say that's "flaunting it" when gay people do it, but straight people do it all the time. And I'm not speaking hypothetically, I've had people tell me exactly that.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on November 30, 2022, 04:11:12 PM
This is a "I'll know it when I see it" test regarding degenerates. 

For example, when you have gay and lesbian people who get cancelled for calling out the grooming of children and the normalization of  pedophilia, you know that they are not degenerates and the people they are calling out are degenerates.

It isn't the "I wanna make sweet sweet man-love with my sex slave wearing leather in the privacy of my home or in a membership sex dungeon" that is the problem. It's the flaunting that activity in front of children on a public city street or encouraging children to try dressing in drag and dancing for money that is the problem. 

That is - whether you are gay, straight, trans and you want to engage in any type of adult activity in privacy that doesn't involve non-consent (kids, animals, adults who can't provide consent), have at it. I don't care if you're into S&M, group sex, or boring vanilla huggin-and-a-kissin. You're doing it in private with others who also want to.  It's the moment you try to flamboyantly expose everyone else to what is intended to be private that it becomes a problem for most people.  And *that* is the crux of the issue - the activist element amongst the LGBTQ don't respect boundaries.

Here's a little thought experiment: would your opinion of a married hetero couple with a couple of kids who lead a "typical" life change if you knew that they preferred kinky sex in private? Most people would say yes (moreso out of jealousy that that weren't having as much fun). But you generally aren't aware of their sex lives precisely because they don't throw it out for everyone to see.  The same holds true of gay or trans people who don't feel the need to announce their sexual activities to the world.

It isn't that someone is gay or straight or trans. It is that someone who is mentally ill in thinking that sexualizing children is normal while simultaneously needing to be an attention whore.

The problem, and this touches on something Brad mentioned, is that, well... you're talking some sort of flexible boundaries.

Brad asked, "am I grooming children?" I would say, absolutely not! I'm strongly against it, and have spoken about it many, many times.

However...

Flaunting it in public? Do you mean, do I walk down the street in a leather gimp suit with my boyfriend on a leash in puppy gear, or whatever the fuck that bald Biden admin freak that was in the news for stealing a woman's luggage did? No. I find the whole "pride" scene to be to be repulsive, having long outlived any actual purpose it served beyond being some sort of kinky mardi gras, and the fact that people suggest taking kids there is disgusting to me.

I'd be right there with y'all to get rid of that sort of shit. I think kink needs to be kept between adults, and preferably in private.

Or do you mean by "flaunting it in public" kissing my boyfriend when we part, or holding his hand while we watch a movie in the theater? Because there are people who say that's "flaunting it" when gay people do it, but straight people do it all the time. And I'm not speaking hypothetically, I've had people tell me exactly that.

It'd be the former where the gimp-suited think it acceptable to engage in their kink on the public square - mostly.

Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem.  Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself. We have neighbors a few doors down - an older (mid 70s) gay couple. All of us assume, but no one bothered to ask - because it's nobodies business but theirs.  I only know for certain because I overheard them engaged in loud rough sex one night this summer with their windows open while I was walking the dog.  As an aside, rough sex needs to stay in the realm of the young... Gay or straight or otherwise, Energetic sex with vocalizations made by an elderly person's voice sounds horrific.  Of course, they're in the privacy of their home, so it's none of my business.

That's the rub - trying to make the "not the norm" become "the norm." Not because gay/straight, married/single, or a multitude of racial and cultural makeups. Because of the activist attitude that continually tries to make the majority acquiesce to the minority in society coupled with their attitude that not being given special rights somehow equals being discriminated against.

To put it more succinctly, if everyone minded their own fucking business, we'd all be better off.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 01, 2022, 12:51:02 AM
Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem.  Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.

It sounds like this complaint isn't about sexualization at all. It's about what people are allowed to say in public.

I don't agree with what a lot of people say - but I also believe in free speech. People have a right to speak their mind, even if that makes them a spectacle. And especially, this is in the context of SHARK and Brad talking about violent cleansing of people they consider degenerates.


That's the rub - trying to make the "not the norm" become "the norm." Not because gay/straight, married/single, or a multitude of racial and cultural makeups. Because of the activist attitude that continually tries to make the majority acquiesce to the minority in society coupled with their attitude that not being given special rights somehow equals being discriminated against.

To put it more succinctly, if everyone minded their own fucking business, we'd all be better off.

In a society with free speech where people can live as they like, it shouldn't matter what "the norm" is. Jehovah's Witnesses are the minority, but they're still free to try to get others to convert to their religion. They'd love it if everyone joined their religion. That doesn't mean they're evil for trying to disrupt the norm. They are free to advocate for their way of life, just as much as Catholics or Lutherans are to advocate for theirs.

Being white Anglo-Saxon Protestant used to be the norm for an American, but now it isn't. That's not a post-modern woke thing. It changed nearly a century ago.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 01, 2022, 12:25:42 PM
Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem.  Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.

It sounds like this complaint isn't about sexualization at all. It's about what people are allowed to say in public.

I don't agree with what a lot of people say - but I also believe in free speech. People have a right to speak their mind, even if that makes them a spectacle. And especially, this is in the context of SHARK and Brad talking about violent cleansing of people they consider degenerates.

It's not a free speech issue. It's the attention-whoring look-at-me-ism of someone purposely trying to force someone else to accept and condone, rather than tolerate.

That's the rub - trying to make the "not the norm" become "the norm." Not because gay/straight, married/single, or a multitude of racial and cultural makeups. Because of the activist attitude that continually tries to make the majority acquiesce to the minority in society coupled with their attitude that not being given special rights somehow equals being discriminated against.

To put it more succinctly, if everyone minded their own fucking business, we'd all be better off.

Quote
In a society with free speech where people can live as they like, it shouldn't matter what "the norm" is. Jehovah's Witnesses are the minority, but they're still free to try to get others to convert to their religion. They'd love it if everyone joined their religion. That doesn't mean they're evil for trying to disrupt the norm. They are free to advocate for their way of life, just as much as Catholics or Lutherans are to advocate for theirs.

Being white Anglo-Saxon Protestant used to be the norm for an American, but now it isn't. That's not a post-modern woke thing. It changed nearly a century ago.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't trying to make Baptists or Catholics or Jews change their religious practices and calling for them to be fired from their jobs if they don't.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 01, 2022, 01:53:45 PM
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't trying to make Baptists or Catholics or Jews change their religious practices and calling for them to be fired from their jobs if they don't.

Jehovah's Witnesses are inherently and inescapably evangelical. I mean, that's, like, the #1 thing they're known for. They may not be trying to get people fired, but they are absolutely trying to convert people to their faith.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on December 01, 2022, 02:24:42 PM
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 01, 2022, 02:54:07 PM
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't trying to make Baptists or Catholics or Jews change their religious practices and calling for them to be fired from their jobs if they don't.

Jehovah's Witnesses are inherently and inescapably evangelical. I mean, that's, like, the #1 thing they're known for. They may not be trying to get people fired, but they are absolutely trying to convert people to their faith.

I think the difference is that you can reliably slam your front door on them and not be called into a meeting with HR the following day...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 01, 2022, 02:56:45 PM
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?

I think it's already started now that Elon Musk is running Twitter.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 01, 2022, 04:33:56 PM
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?

I think it's already started now that Elon Musk is running Twitter.

That's not going to make reconcilliation more viable. It's already being portrayed as the Worst Thing Evar by the left.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 01, 2022, 04:52:20 PM
That's not going to make reconcilliation more viable. It's already being portrayed as the Worst Thing Evar by the left.

Funny how communists get mad when they can't control what people say...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 01, 2022, 05:14:50 PM
      Free speech was a huge point for lefties for a long time.  Now a days....there seem to be some subjects so dangerous they can not be discussed in public by anyone lest the corrupting words immediately take effect and cause mass violence.....   So strange that once a side is able to use a tool, free speech, to get what they want tolerated as norms, time to shut that shit down....  It will be an interesting next two decades.   
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on December 01, 2022, 05:20:19 PM
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?

One idea that occurred to me -- and I have not thought this deeply through so there may well be problems worth criticizing in it -- would be to try to establish, possibly with protection under law, a concept I will rather grandiosely call the "Right of Employment-Independent Conscience".

The biggest legal framework of this would be that a company or organization cannot fire an employee for publicly upholding or expressing a value or stance not shared by the organization or the organization's leaders, unless that value or stance is explicitly enumerated in the employment contract or organizational founding charter (so churches can still have morality clauses, but companies don't get to fire you for your blog posts). The flip side of this is that no individual or company can legally terminate an existing contract with another company solely because of publicly expressed private statements by any given employee of that company (so your employer can sue anybody who breaks a contract with them because of something you said).

Put simply, if everyone was protected from having to choose between their conscience and their livelihood except in the most foundational of dilemmas, conflicts of value could be allowed to play out through free speech without the blackmail silencing effects of cancel culture, and the resentment, hostility and fear of those who could not afford that free speech would be greatly alleviated. I think that might go a long way towards calming things down.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 01, 2022, 05:36:54 PM
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on December 01, 2022, 05:49:11 PM
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.

Tell that to the lawyer who was let go from her law firm for having the nerve to say -- in a conference call explicitly designated as a "safe space" to talk about such reactions -- that she actually didn't disagree with the Dobbs decision.

There's also a difference in that most current discrimination (affirmative action or otherwise) takes place in the hiring part of the process. Cancel culture, by contrast, is all about socio-economically punishing people for things that have nothing to do with how well they do or don't do their job.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 01, 2022, 06:31:25 PM
Employers actively and legally discriminate based on race and sex....I am pretty sure not getting fired over opinions is a long way in the rear view at this point.

Tell that to the lawyer who was let go from her law firm for having the nerve to say -- in a conference call explicitly designated as a "safe space" to talk about such reactions -- that she actually didn't disagree with the Dobbs decision.

There's also a difference in that most current discrimination (affirmative action or otherwise) takes place in the hiring part of the process. Cancel culture, by contrast, is all about socio-economically punishing people for things that have nothing to do with how well they do or don't do their job.

  I dont think you understood what I meant by the rear view.   As for AA it is the EXACT same as cancel culture, you just do not bother with allowing the person to say anything inappropriate.  You just bar them from entry based solely on race.   If you can do that with the law and "society" on your side, you are NEVER going to be able to allow people to have the opinion they want at work in the open and be safe from getting shitcanned.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 01, 2022, 09:29:21 PM
      Free speech was a huge point for lefties for a long time.  Now a days....there seem to be some subjects so dangerous they can not be discussed in public by anyone lest the corrupting words immediately take effect and cause mass violence.....   So strange that once a side is able to use a tool, free speech, to get what they want tolerated as norms, time to shut that shit down....  It will be an interesting next two decades.   

The left labels the truth as racist, sexist, etc. because they are incapable of winning hearts and minds when the playing field of ideas is level.

They can't win on logic, so they rely upon emotion.

EDIT: And they also rely upon the fact that public schools turn out zombies unable to think critically.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 02, 2022, 06:01:15 PM
So, to possibly move the thread in a more positive discussion, what would need to happen to make rconciliation more viable?

I think it's already started now that Elon Musk is running Twitter.

Yeah. I think it's good to mix up platforms and their perceived loyalties, as it shakes people out of their echo chambers. As I commented earlier, I think disconnecting from social media will be a positive step towards reconciliation. Social media thrives on keeping people in constant outrage.


Kissing your boyfriend in public? I could care less. Kissing your boyfriend in public while loudly proclaiming "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" That's a problem.  Not because you're kissing in public - because you're making a spectacle of yourself.

It sounds like this complaint isn't about sexualization at all. It's about what people are allowed to say in public.

I don't agree with what a lot of people say - but I also believe in free speech. People have a right to speak their mind, even if that makes them a spectacle. And especially, this is in the context of SHARK and Brad talking about violent cleansing of people they consider degenerates.

It's not a free speech issue. It's the attention-whoring look-at-me-ism of someone purposely trying to force someone else to accept and condone, rather than tolerate.

But you didn't mention anything about use of force in your previous statement. If someone is saying "we're queer and we're here - deal with it, breeders!!!" -- they're using speech. Thus, their right to do so is an issue of free speech. People can use free speech to command attention and call for change. I might not agree with people's positions, but they have a right to express themselves.

I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 02, 2022, 08:57:12 PM
I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.

This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 02, 2022, 09:11:14 PM
I might disagree with what people say or how they express it - but expressing their positions is their right in a free society.

This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

At least he gives lip service.  Twitter, not so much. Elon just dropped a bunch of internal emails showing that Twitter execs colluded with the Dem-led government and the DNC to violate the 1st amendment - and keeping it hidden from the former CEO.  The Dems even started that the 1A isn't absolute in their correspondence. When you have incontrovertible proof that the Dems, tech companies and the media engaging in illegal acts that are prosecutable under the RICO Act, there can be no reconciliation
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 03, 2022, 10:01:17 AM
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 03, 2022, 12:47:17 PM
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

In this case, it's more like -

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That's exactly what a radical vegetarian would say, right up until they get control and take away all meat."


I've seen exactly this among some leftists, with "I'm not racist" being met with "That's exactly what a racist would say."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on December 03, 2022, 04:31:23 PM
In this case, it's more like -

"Meat is good, I like meat!"
"That's exactly what a radical vegetarian would say, right up until they get control and take away all meat."

I've seen exactly this among some leftists, with "I'm not racist" being met with "That's exactly what a racist would say."

C.S. Lewis called this logic "the invisible cat" in his book The Four Loves, talking about the tiresome need to refute the assertion that every close masculine friendship in literature was to be interpreted as an instance of repressed homoeroticism, and continually running up against the fact that whenever you pointed out there was no visible sign of sexual passion at all between the principals, the opposition would nod sagely and say, "That is just what we should expect to find."  "We are arguing," Lewis said, "like a man who should say, 'If there were an invisible cat in that chair, then the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it.'"

Which, leading back to the original question, brings one of the biggest obstacles to reconciliation into view: before it can be achieved something resembling good faith negotiation has to be achieved between the sides, and the problem with asking for good faith negotiations is that it is always a rational response, from the position of fearing bad faith, to say, "You first."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 04, 2022, 10:35:42 AM
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."

  well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what?  That bullshit works and works like a charm.  So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 04, 2022, 10:47:36 AM
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."

  well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what?  That bullshit works and works like a charm.  So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.
This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 04, 2022, 11:00:18 AM
Usually it's pointless to engage with bad faith actors & enablers. Dismissing them is fine. Shame and ridicule is appropriate. Block/Ignoring them is best.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 04, 2022, 11:56:39 AM
  well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what?  That bullshit works and works like a charm.  So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.

This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.

I'm not talking about fighting fair or being nice. I'm saying it's a meaningless argument that can be used to justify anything, and yet really justifies nothing. It's not even really an argument, it's a silencing tactic. It's basically just "Shut up, Nazi". It's every bit as robust and logical as the idiots who try the whole "Hitler was a vegetarian!" joking meme argument against vegans.

It's not even being wrong, it's just being dumb.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 05, 2022, 10:35:11 AM
This is exactly what communists say until they gain control, then all that crap goes right out the window.

"<X> is exactly what <Y> would say!" is one of weakest and most suspect arguments in existence. I heard it enough over on TBP.

"Meat is good, I like meat!"

"That sounds like something a cannibal would say!"

Yes. Similar basic ideals can be held both by people with good intentions and people with bad intentions. But, with a margin of error small enough it hardly matters, almost every time this argument gets used, what I hear is "I can't actually argue the basic point, so I'm just going to compare you to someone we've all agreed to hate to silence you."

I didn't make an argument, I just pointed out a fact. Cf. every communist regime for the past hundred years. I mean, what are you trying to refute? Have you ever read Hegel before? This is exactly how it works.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 05, 2022, 11:09:57 AM
I didn't make an argument, I just pointed out a fact. Cf. every communist regime for the past hundred years. I mean, what are you trying to refute? Have you ever read Hegel before? This is exactly how it works.

Well, you're right that you didn't make an argument.

My response is, so what?

Bad people do <X>. So what? Are you saying <X> is bad because bad people do it? Are you saying <X> makes bad people? Are you saying because bad people do <X>, we should be suspicious of anyone who supports <X>? Are you saying we need to regulate <X> because bad people lie about supporting it?

Again, bad people do <X>, so what?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 05, 2022, 11:22:38 AM
Well, you're right that you didn't make an argument.

My response is, so what?

Bad people do <X>. So what? Are you saying <X> is bad because bad people do it? Are you saying <X> makes bad people? Are you saying because bad people do <X>, we should be suspicious of anyone who supports <X>? Are you saying we need to regulate <X> because bad people lie about supporting it?

Again, bad people do <X>, so what?

So nothing, just an observation. Think of it more like a flippant remark intended to obliquely insult our resident CCP agent.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 05, 2022, 04:51:54 PM
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?

Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it. (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/comments/z4m21k/whats_your_political_alignment/)

I absolutely do not think it's JUST a conservative problem. Tons of people have that same problem, including most liberals. But that's pretty typical for the last 25 years or so. It's not as typical for conservatives over that time frame. The utter disrespect for moderates and independents from conservatives started around Trump. Which means I know the people I am talking to likely used to be more accepting of moderates and now are not, and I hope to appeal to whatever was in them which used to be OK with moderates.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 05, 2022, 04:56:49 PM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.

It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.

But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Talk about oblivious to history!  Every time a "moderate" is in power, they give the left everything they want.  Name the great moderates in American politics.  McCain?  Romney?  GHW Bush?  How did they push back on the left?  They just headed left more slowly.

I could list a ton of conservative principles they supported with policies, you'd ignore the ones that make you uncomfortable and focus on some tiny aspect of one you thought you could spin to exploit as "proof" of your argument, and it would be useless. Because, as you admit, you're starting from a position of disrespect, so anything I say as a moderate you'd disrespect.

Quote
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 05, 2022, 09:52:25 PM
Greetings!

Geesus. Fuck the "Moderates". All of those worms that love to wallow in "The Middle" while smugly pronouncing how oh so sophisticated and reasonable they are, typically maintaining that they are "Fiscally Conservative, but socially Liberal". Those wormy fucks have been a constant problem in the GOP since the days of Reagan, where they typically opposed and resisted President Reagan's policies and efforts.

These jello-filled wormtongues are very often nowadays what we know as being "RINOS". The fucking McCains, the Liz Cheneys, the Mitt Romneys. They like to proclaim that they're "Conservatives!" Fuck you. No, they are not. Merely embracing Conservative fiscal policies while being socially Liberal means that you can fucking gargle napalm. These fuckers are constantly compromising with the Liberals, and gleefully and stupidly opening the door for Marxism to pour in. Like has been mentioned, most of these jackasses have been quite content over the last 30 years to allow the country and culture to be fucked by Communism--just moving to the left more slowly than the Liberal cunts would prefer and actively push to do so.

These wormtongues work against Conservatives on everything really important--morals, guns, the Constitution, resisting Communism, parental authority, school choice, abortion laws, all of it. "Fiscally Conservative!" Pfftt! BIG FUCKING DEAL. That is far down the list of priorities in fighting against the fucking Liberals and saving our country from Communism.

The mushy middle are weak fucking pussies. Our country is struggling against fucking Communism, and needs real warriors, true patriots to stand up, and constantly fight and resist the goddamned Liberals--not find ways to compromise with them, or go play golf, or laugh while their kids date each other.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 06, 2022, 12:35:01 AM
I know I'm not going to change my opinions and beliefs because some internet goober whined that I'm being "too moderate".
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 06, 2022, 05:37:51 AM
  well I agree it is a weak argument in a logical sense, but guess what?  That bullshit works and works like a charm.  So...if you are going to be in a fight with someone fighting fair is really stupid.

This. This is what mainstream Republicans don't get. No one gives a shit about Queensberry Rules. You have to win by any means necessary.

I'm not talking about fighting fair or being nice. I'm saying it's a meaningless argument that can be used to justify anything, and yet really justifies nothing. It's not even really an argument, it's a silencing tactic. It's basically just "Shut up, Nazi". It's every bit as robust and logical as the idiots who try the whole "Hitler was a vegetarian!" joking meme argument against vegans.

It's not even being wrong, it's just being dumb.

 Again, I agree.  I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically.  The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win.  To get what you want.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 06, 2022, 05:39:24 AM
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.

It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.

But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Talk about oblivious to history!  Every time a "moderate" is in power, they give the left everything they want.  Name the great moderates in American politics.  McCain?  Romney?  GHW Bush?  How did they push back on the left?  They just headed left more slowly.

I could list a ton of conservative principles they supported with policies, you'd ignore the ones that make you uncomfortable and focus on some tiny aspect of one you thought you could spin to exploit as "proof" of your argument, and it would be useless. Because, as you admit, you're starting from a position of disrespect, so anything I say as a moderate you'd disrespect.

Quote
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

   "moderates" in a modern sense have NO principles.  They are like jellyfish.  If you are pro gun control and against higher taxes you do not understand how the world works.   "Far right" principles and stances today are just "moderate" principles from 20 years ago.  There is no moderate when the window is sliding so fast to the left.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: blackstone on December 06, 2022, 11:01:33 AM
I don't think reconciliation is possible no.

Where would the left even start?

Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?

Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.

But you just hit the nail on the head.  Tulsi Gabbard is, to the left, worse than a traitor, because she can clearly articulate to the public just exactly how fucked up their agenda is.

But let's be clear.  It isn't that there are all these leftists who organically just want to be activists for bledding-heart causes. They are useful idiots for a ChiCom (primarily) communist agenda.  The CCP owns many US politicians and business leaders - across the political spectrum.  Ask yourself who benefits from an agenda that proposes that sexually confused teens take hormone blockers and chop off body parts and don't engage in traditional gender roles. Ask yourself who benefits from having a citizenry divided amongst itself. Or that allows an unchecked horde of non-loyal immigrants. Or that allows foreign holding companies to buy real estate and businesses, including farmland and facilities in the food and energy sectors? How many other "10% to the big guy" criminal activities are going on that haven't come to light?  Why did a group of both Dem and Rep senators try to stifle the SEC investigation of FTX?  How many pols of both parties continue to miraculous beat the S&P 500? Follow the money.

How many other countries tolerate any of this?  Go ahead and try dissenting in China and see how quickly you end up in a reeducation prison.

We are a nation divided, led by an administrative state that is not loyal to the principles the country was founded on, and society is in moral decay.  The US *is* the Roman Empire under Caligula and Nero.

You nailed it on the head 100%. I've been saying this for twenty years now. the comparisons to the late Roman empire are frightening:
-a politically divided population: in the late Roman Empire it was the supporters of the Senate vs the Emperor. In the USA today, it's the extremes of left and right vying for control of the center.
-borders that are not under control: late Roman empire is was invasions of Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc. Today in the US: illegal immigration from Mexico , Central America, and Caribbean.
- fighting several costly wars: late Roman Empire: fighting barbarian invasions. USA today: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
- over-taxed citizens
there are others, but I think these are the ones that are key. Ultimately, the Roman Empire decayed from the inside, and pressures from outside dealt the death blow. Mind you, this didn't happen all at once. The Roman Empire's decline took several hundred years. IMO, the decline of the US is already in progress and been in decline since the late 60s. I would say in the next 50 years, the United States as it is today will no longer exist. It will be a dim shadow of itself. but this is the way of the world since the beginning of time. Empires and nations rise and fall. It's inevitable.

And sad.

At least for me. Most of my life I believed in the American Dream. A good portion of that was also spent defending those beliefs, the Constitution, and freedom. Now? This nation is slowly falling apart. Too much extremes. Nobody willing to take the center road for the common good of all. Corruption, greed, and loss of it's moral center. "A house divided cannot stand". Well, let it fall. Let it burn. Let it come crashing down. I'm ready. My family is ready. We've been ready for the coming shit storm for years. If neither one of you extreme assholes out there aren't willing to swallow your pride and come to a common ground with each other, well, I got news for ya. BOTH of you are screwed. We're all screwed.

Let. It. Burn.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 06, 2022, 11:03:01 AM
Again, I agree.  I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically.  The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win.  To get what you want.

I'm not willing to win that way.

This isn't about fighting fair, or being the bigger man, or anything. It's purely a practical issue. It's because I know the things waiting in the wings of my own party. We are not saints. The Republican party has it's own excesses, and can be every bit the morally puritanical, holier than thou, censoring tyrants the Democrats can be if given even half a chance. If we win the fight for the 2nd Amendment and chasing out the communists but we do so by the same bullshit tactics dangerhairs and the woke crusaders and rioters use, the society we're left with won't actually be any better or more free than what they want. If I win the freedom to criticize the opposition, but the cost is losing the freedom to criticize my nominal allies, I haven't actually won.


   "moderates" in a modern sense have NO principles.  They are like jellyfish.  If you are pro gun control and against higher taxes you do not understand how the world works.   "Far right" principles and stances today are just "moderate" principles from 20 years ago.  There is no moderate when the window is sliding so fast to the left.

We live in a two party system. And even if you look past "Republican" and "Democrat" and try to make it "Conservative" vs "Liberal", or, well, literally any two groups of that size, if you expect 51% or more of the people who vote in one direction to actually believe exactly the same thing about everything, your definition of "principles" is ridiculous. Hell, my closest friend in all the world and I still disagree on some things.

I mostly hold fairly conservative positions. I'm a free speech absolutist, I'm pro-2A to the point I had the pro-2A people over at TBP telling me "whoah, slow down there, Bruwulf." I despise wokeness in almost all it's forms. I'm against things like UBI, reparations, and similar programs. I think California is a failed state - along with a few others at this point. And so on. But on the other hand, I do support gay marriage, and I'd really rather not go back to the 80s where gays were literally criminalized for having sex in some states. Sorry, I'm gay, but I'm not one of those funny self-hating ones that thinks I can pray away the gay or feels like voluntarily living celebately for the rest of my life. And I've already said earlier that I'm anti-death-penalty, another area where I typically part company from conservatives. If that makes me a spineless jellyfish moderate, well... I guess you'll have to just swallow your damned disgust and accept my vote anyways, because I'm sure not gonna vote the other direction right now. I mean, for fuck's sake, the other guys knowingly elected a gibbering Alzheimer's patient who should be in a nursing home, not the white house.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 06, 2022, 12:48:43 PM
Again, I agree.  I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically.  The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win.  To get what you want.
I'm not willing to win that way.
Then accept that you and everyone you love who doesn't betray you will lose, suffer and die and the winners will write in the history books that you were a monster who deserved what you got.

There's a thing called picking your battles and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or less bad in this case). The Left has been moving the needle for a hundred years and we've hit the existential crisis level. You can't clean that up overnight... its going to take years (decades realistically) pushing back in the other direction to fix it. The only question in terms of politicians these days is "which side sucks less."

You push the needle by getting involved in the primaries and pushing for best candidate both there and in the general and take the ground back inch by inch just like they took it inch by inch.

The Republican establishment sucks ass, but we allied with the Soviets to take down the Nazis... and the deck is so stacked against third parties that a hostile takeover of Republican Inc. (both parties are corporations... and if not for all the judges belonging to them could probably be sued for anti-trust collusion) is the most viable battle strategy at the moment. There are thousands of open positions that can affect that... I signed up for one unoccupied precinct position this last election and now I have a vote in the corporate outcomes; if everyone disgusted with the direction of the country did the same we could actually make real changes... but most just want to whine about it on social media (or here) rather than actually do something about it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 06, 2022, 12:52:23 PM
Again, I agree.  I also can clearly see retard level dumb WORKS when it comes to moving the needle in the direction one might want politically.  The whole book rules for radicals centers around just tossing out dumbs shit non stop to put others on the defensive, because the goal is not to look or sound smart, it is to win.  To get what you want.

I'm not willing to win that way.

Thing is, look at what happens when Communists take power. Mass death. We're already seeing people locked down, prevented from traveling, mass censorship, imprisonment without trial, fake elections, bank accounts frozen, commerce banned for undesirables, kulaks having land seized, etc.

There's a point at which you have to understand what time it is.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 06, 2022, 01:32:13 PM
Being against the death penalty is not moderate or liberal.  Its common sense.  Death penalty as the USA uses it does not discourage crime nor is it cost effective.  As for any one’s vote…that ship has sailed.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 06, 2022, 01:32:20 PM
Then accept that you and everyone you love who doesn't betray you will lose, suffer and die and the winners will write in the history books that you were a monster who deserved what you got.

So you're saying being principled means betraying my principles. Got it.

There's a thing called picking your battles and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (or less bad in this case). The Left has been moving the needle for a hundred years and we've hit the existential crisis level. You can't clean that up overnight... its going to take years (decades realistically) pushing back in the other direction to fix it. The only question in terms of politicians these days is "which side sucks less.".

Yeah. Hence why I vote for for Republicans, despite often having problems with the Republican party. Because I'm willing to swallow my pride and vote for people I often find to be spineless tools, because the alternative is worse. But I won't become everything I despise to win, either. So I'm not going to act like some Gen-Z twitter cancel-culture fuckwit just because they make it work.

You push the needle by getting involved in the primaries and pushing for best candidate both there and in the general and take the ground back inch by inch just like they took it inch by inch.

Yeah, I do this, or at least I did when I lived in Michigan. Where I live now is so deep red a good chunk of Republicans could stay home and it wouldn't matter.

The Republican establishment sucks ass, but we allied with the Soviets to take down the Nazis... and the deck is so stacked against third parties that a hostile takeover of Republican Inc. (both parties are corporations... and if not for all the judges belonging to them could probably be sued for anti-trust collusion) is the most viable battle strategy at the moment. There are thousands of open positions that can affect that... I signed up for one unoccupied precinct position this last election and now I have a vote in the corporate outcomes; if everyone disgusted with the direction of the country did the same we could actually make real changes... but most just want to whine about it on social media (or here) rather than actually do something about it.

Unfortunately, what I fear is going to happen is that in the process of trying to turn the party in a different direction, it winds up splitting. Because that's going to fuck everything up. I was hoping the Democrat party would split, for a while, but I massively over-estimated the amount of free thought in the party. But whichever party splits first - and one of them will, sooner or later - is going to be absolutely fucked for all eternity.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 06, 2022, 01:39:09 PM
Being against the death penalty is not moderate or liberal.  Its common sense.  Death penalty as the USA uses it does not discourage crime nor is it cost effective.  As for any one’s vote…that ship has sailed.

You might be surprised how many people have implied I'm a liberal pussy because of my views on that subject, then.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 06, 2022, 02:14:09 PM
Hi everyone!
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

There is hope but very little. The USA was never a unified country in a cultural way. It was a collection of different people with different backgrounds who agreed to disagree as long as the other side actually showed tolerance -- that is leave each other alone. As the more and more immigrants came to the USA those differences only increased. Which is fine as long as there is that core value of mutual tolerance. That no longer exists. The Left in this country, and some on the right, no longer are willing to allow those people who disagree with them to live their lives in peace as they see fit.

There is only one way for that to end. Well maybe two... if the USA can restore the 'federalism' that was the basis of its foundation maybe people could get back to living their lives the way they want to, and leaving the rest alone. I don't see that happening.

So there will be war. In fact I believe we are already at war. Only one side is fighting and the other side deludes themselves into thinking things can be worked out. Wars only end when one side is defeated, or when both sides form into mutually hostile but separate camps.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: David Johansen on December 06, 2022, 02:45:39 PM
In principle I'm pro death penalty.  That killer's life isn't worth more than their next vicitm.  In practice, I don't trust the government enough to allow it.  Nor should anyone.

A civil war would certainly put an end to America as a world power or a nation of any consequence.  Maybe that's good, maybe it's bad.  If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 06, 2022, 04:36:10 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 06, 2022, 04:52:24 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.

But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 06, 2022, 04:55:35 PM
Then accept that you and everyone you love who doesn't betray you will lose, suffer and die and the winners will write in the history books that you were a monster who deserved what you got.

So you're saying being principled means betraying my principles. Got it.
What principles do you feel you'd be violating by working with "the army you have" instead of holding out for "the army you want" in order to not have those you love suffer and die?

There's a basic principle that's "don't go borrowing tomorrow's problems when you're dealing with today's."

You don't worry about what you'll become if you kill a man when that man has a knife to your kid's throat. You just do what you think is best to save your kid from the madman with the knife and worry about the rest after you've saved your kid. The very fact that you worry about becoming those things is largely a sign that you won't become those things while doing what's necessary to protect others from harm.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 06, 2022, 05:02:28 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.

But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.

Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".

Still, notice how just a little win in the midterm started to change things away from the woke narrative everywhere.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 06, 2022, 05:15:10 PM
Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".

The 19th Amendment was a mistake.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 06, 2022, 06:12:16 PM
What principles do you feel you'd be violating by working with "the army you have" instead of holding out for "the army you want" in order to not have those you love suffer and die?

There's a basic principle that's "don't go borrowing tomorrow's problems when you're dealing with today's."

You don't worry about what you'll become if you kill a man when that man has a knife to your kid's throat. You just do what you think is best to save your kid from the madman with the knife and worry about the rest after you've saved your kid. The very fact that you worry about becoming those things is largely a sign that you won't become those things while doing what's necessary to protect others from harm.

I'm not worried about what I'll become. I'm worried about what happens when a group that fights by being illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes... continues to be illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes after they win, instead of magically turning into freedom-loving rational actors.

But what are the chances of that?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 06, 2022, 06:43:38 PM
What principles do you feel you'd be violating by working with "the army you have" instead of holding out for "the army you want" in order to not have those you love suffer and die?

There's a basic principle that's "don't go borrowing tomorrow's problems when you're dealing with today's."

You don't worry about what you'll become if you kill a man when that man has a knife to your kid's throat. You just do what you think is best to save your kid from the madman with the knife and worry about the rest after you've saved your kid. The very fact that you worry about becoming those things is largely a sign that you won't become those things while doing what's necessary to protect others from harm.

I'm not worried about what I'll become. I'm worried about what happens when a group that fights by being illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes... continues to be illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes after they win, instead of magically turning into freedom-loving rational actors.

But what are the chances of that?

The US Founding Fathers were perfectly okay with killing British people & mercenaries who invaded their homes and tried to subjugate them. They weren't friendly towards Crown sympathizers either. They didn't worry if their enemies thought about them as "illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes."

You sincerely have a very weird and rosy picture about the past, as well as a misunderstanding of real politics. The people who ascend to the top of power structures are almost always assholes, because that's the type of person who craves power. There's a real difference between what the US has now -- an illegitimate regime of assholes who crave power and want to hurt Americans -- versus a legitimate government full of assholes who crave power and want to help Americans.

It isn't surprising that the US revolutionaries (keep in mind, that the Revolutionary war was only fought by ~5% of the US population) fought like devils and yet turned around and made a good government. They wanted the country they were ruling to flourish.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 06, 2022, 07:42:06 PM
The US Founding Fathers were perfectly okay with killing British people & mercenaries who invaded their homes and tried to subjugate them. They weren't friendly towards Crown sympathizers either. They didn't worry if their enemies thought about them as "illogical, silencing, anti-free-speech assholes."

Then go out there and get killing.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is "a hot war and a social struggle are different situations" too controversial of a statement?

You sincerely have a very weird and rosy picture about the past, as well as a misunderstanding of real politics. The people who ascend to the top of power structures are almost always assholes, because that's the type of person who craves power. There's a real difference between what the US has now -- an illegitimate regime of assholes who crave power and want to hurt Americans -- versus a legitimate government full of assholes who crave power and want to help Americans.

No. Because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand your premise. I agree that the people who seek power are rarely the ones we would really want to have it, but that having been acknowledged, I choose to pick which sorts of excesses and assholishness I support.

It isn't surprising that the US revolutionaries (keep in mind, that the Revolutionary war was only fought by ~5% of the US population) fought like devils and yet turned around and made a good government. They wanted the country they were ruling to flourish.

Yeah, but also, no. You are not George Washington. What he and his compatriots did doesn't make me more likely to trust Timmy the Keyboard Warrior.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 06, 2022, 08:48:46 PM
Then go out there and get killing.

Who advocated that? Strawmanning isn't productive and doesn't make you cool.

It isn't surprising that the US revolutionaries (keep in mind, that the Revolutionary war was only fought by ~5% of the US population) fought like devils and yet turned around and made a good government. They wanted the country they were ruling to flourish.

Yeah, but also, no. You are not George Washington. What he and his compatriots did doesn't make me more likely to trust Timmy the Keyboard Warrior.

Sincerely, the strawmanning is boring. I've simply been pointing out the reality of where the US (& Europe/Australia) are.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 06, 2022, 08:55:34 PM

Sincerely, the strawmanning is boring. I've simply been pointing out the reality of wher the US (& Europe/Australia) are.

You're the one bringing up armed revolution, not me. If I'm strawmanning, I'm filling the clothes you gave me with the straw you also gave me.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 06, 2022, 09:03:01 PM

Sincerely, the strawmanning is boring. I've simply been pointing out the reality of wher the US (& Europe/Australia) are.

You're the one bringing up armed revolution, not me. If I'm strawmanning, I'm filling the clothes you gave me with the straw you also gave me.

How is it strawmanning to use a historical example that demonstrates the flaw in the thesis that "assholes" won't magically turn into "freedom-loving rational actors" after they win?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Daztur on December 06, 2022, 09:11:25 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

What gives me the most hope for the future is, whatever you can say about the original fascists a whole lot of them were hardass veterans of WW I trench warfare. 21st century fascists though? 99% of them are a bunch of angry idiots shouting on the internet who'll never actually do anything. It's important for sane people to arm themselves as the current crop of fascists are generally cowardly loudmouths who would never ever get involved in a fair fight.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 06, 2022, 09:28:48 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.

But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.

Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".

Still, notice how just a little win in the midterm started to change things away from the woke narrative everywhere.

Yes, win elections again. But that implies that elections were conducted without criminal activity. 

We have an AZ Sec of State who threatened county elections officials with prison if they didn't vote to confirm she won and then she certified her own election results.

We have proof that Dems used database latency to make mass change of address requests on voters for mail ballots that are undeliverable due to bad zip codes which are then collected by a bad actor after which the zip codes are changed back in the voter rolls database. Then those "undeliverable" ballots are brought into polling locations under the cover of various facility issues (flooding, loss of power, fire, etc.) that cleared the building of occupants that could watch them do it

We *need* very public and very brutal punishment of willful election fraud. And it starts with jettisoning those in the RNC who are weak or actually in on the corruption.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 06, 2022, 09:37:10 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

So we should all should live in fear? I must admit there are way too many keyboard warriors talking about things they don't understand. All these guys who have never been in a fist fight talking about how they are going to go down shooting with a hot empty gun in their cold dead hands. Fighting and killing is hard; most cannot do it. Most likely they will end up being taken away whimpering and crying.

But I think it is just a matter of time. They are going to come after us brave or not. Armed or not. Guilty or not. Indeed, look at the Jan 6th crowd... at worst trespass. That is a misdemeanor -- $150 fine and 30 days in jail. No weapons, no violence. And yet almost 2 years on and they are still in solitary confinement being denied legal representation, basic human rights, etc. Why? Because they scared powerful and evil people.

Win elections again. Judging from what I see around me, the right had a lot of sympathy before the last midterm election, but then they also lost a LOT of momentum because of the abortion issue. I magine all the women who already had an abortion just going "nope".

Still, notice how just a little win in the midterm started to change things away from the woke narrative everywhere.

Yes, win elections again. But that implies that elections were conducted without criminal activity. 

We have an AZ Sec of State who threatened county elections officials with prison if they didn't vote to confirm she won and then she certified her own election results.

We have proof that Dems used database latency to make mass change of address requests on voters for mail ballots that are undeliverable due to bad zip codes which are then collected by a bad actor after which the zip codes are changed back in the voter rolls database. Then those "undeliverable" ballots are brought into polling locations under the cover of various facility issues (flooding, loss of power, fire, etc.) that cleared the building of occupants that could watch them do it

We *need* very public and very brutal punishment of willful election fraud. And it starts with jettisoning those in the RNC who are weak or actually in on the corruption.

I agree. So focus on winning elections, and supporting people like Project Veritas and others (like James Woods suing the Democtrats now) who go after people who cheat.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on December 06, 2022, 11:45:09 PM
I'm generally all for compromise, but compromise implies a give and take situation.  I can't see that leftists ever give anything, they just take.  We give them an inch, they take a mile. 

Let's take as an example - one of many I could use - the Civil Rights movement, specifically school integration.  American Blacks and their white liberal allies had become convinced that the only way black kids would ever get equal educational resources was by integrating white schools.  And in fact, "separate but equal" really was  a lie, since in no way were facilities for black children, salaries for black schoolteachers, etc. equal to the white ones (at least in the South).  Most Americans, including the white majority, agreed with this and so the compromise of public school integration eventually happened, albeit over resistance.

When the test scores of black children didn't get any better, then liberals argued that we needed more black teachers, as the black kids needed black role models.  So we got more of them, even though that meant racial discrimination against white teachers who might be more qualified. **   Since white teachers ousted from their jobs were a minority of the population, they lost out and this too happened.

But black graduation rates and test scores still didn't rise, so then it was argued that we had to dumb down the curriculum.  This too happened, as the politicians making the decisions and the influential journalists pushing for them sent their kids to private schools or public schools in rich, all-white areas anyway.

Then it was argued that black children, especially boys, didn't react to discipline well and needed to be able to "act out" (i.e., misbehave without any negative consequences).  Again, this happened. The lack of discipline not only made schools more dangerous, it had a serious negative effect on students who actually wanted to learn.  The idea that black children are both inherently more stupid and more violent than other humans, once mainly the province of conservatives,  is by now in full flower among liberals.  They just believe these traits should be encouraged instead of repressed, as did the conservatives.

And here we are today with one of the world's shittiest public school systems, with many public school students routinely graduated not knowing how to read above an eighth-grade level and not really being equipped to get any sort of decent-paying job.  This is what "compromise" has brought us with regard to public education in the U.S.  As should be apparent to even the veriest idiot, a better way to handle all of this would have been to either equalize school resources or fully integrate and then end it there.  There WAS no compromise, just a string of giving liberals whatever they asked for, no matter how dumb. And now they often ask for, and get, SEGREGATED schools, student dorms, student unions, etc. 


**This in fact happened to my then-girlfriend, later wife.  She interviewed for a teaching position in a mostly-black elementary school and was told that she was by far the best applicant, "head and shoulders" above the rest.  Then she was told by the interviewers that she wouldn't be getting the job, as she wasn't black.  Nice.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 07, 2022, 01:58:50 AM
Greetings!

Geesus. Fuck the "Moderates". All of those worms that love to wallow in "The Middle" while smugly pronouncing how oh so sophisticated and reasonable they are

Bullshit. They don't declare any such thing. Fuck dude, YOU claim that about your views. You did it in this very post. We just believe what we believe like anyone else. And you pout because it's not what you believe. Moderates smug? What bullshit. Moderates tend to keep their heads down and try to stay out of the line of fire. Smug is calling everyone the enemy if they don't fully agree.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 07, 2022, 02:20:46 AM
And here we are today with one of the world's shittiest public school systems, with many public school students routinely graduated not knowing how to read above an eighth-grade level and not really being equipped to get any sort of decent-paying job...

While I'd echo most of what you said, one thing to be cautious of here is the misleading nature of aggregated data. The Program for International Student Assessment, for example, shows that American students perform roughly equivalently to European students in their standardized testing. Broader USA school underperformance is easily understood because it's a more heterogenous group. Places like Texas that have regions that are majority-hispanic perform roughly equivalently to countries like Mexico on standardized testing.

As should be apparent to even the veriest idiot, a better way to handle all of this would have been to either equalize school resources or fully integrate and then end it there.

I'll disagree with this point here. There is no value-neutral way to allocate resources. The value-neutral thing is important, because that's the whole reason why we theoretically favor "equality." But "equality" is a fraud. It's a cop-out for a real argument.

When I was in school, we had a special program for the students that were more intelligent. The school allocated additional resources for us to give us an advantage, and in turn we represented the school in competitions and events that helped us (theoretically) bring prestige and accolades. We sent our best musicians to play in concerts, and we send our best athletes in competitions.

These days I don't think most (USA) schools have this kind of program anymore. These resources are now allocated towards diversity programs and special education. While I think there can be some value in these things, on a case-by-case basis, they're largely a waste.

More important is the broader principle: should you cultivate the talents of the most promising, or strive endlessly to bring up the least talented? The former strategy works, the latter strategy does not work. Yet "equality" is predicated on the latter strategy. That's not a way to make a functional society.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 07, 2022, 05:25:31 AM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

What gives me the most hope for the future is, whatever you can say about the original fascists a whole lot of them were hardass veterans of WW I trench warfare. 21st century fascists though? 99% of them are a bunch of angry idiots shouting on the internet who'll never actually do anything. It's important for sane people to arm themselves as the current crop of fascists are generally cowardly loudmouths who would never ever get involved in a fair fight.

  First the fascists are imaginary.   There are pretty much a non population in the USA.  Second, if you think there are no people who can and will fight in the USA over some of the bullshit going on (or is it fascist to not be instantly on board with boys in the girls locker rooms and letting trannies hang around elementary school kids) you are going to FAFO.   Thanks to the global american empire policy of bombing everyone into democracy for decades now there are A LOT of combat veterans in the USA.  A lot of them are being demonized in society openly for just being white.   Good luck on how that turns out once dip shits go too far.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 07, 2022, 06:00:58 AM
When I was in school, we had a special program for the students that were more intelligent. The school allocated additional resources for us to give us an advantage, and in turn we represented the school in competitions and events that helped us (theoretically) bring prestige and accolades. We sent our best musicians to play in concerts, and we send our best athletes in competitions.

These days I don't think most (USA) schools have this kind of program anymore. These resources are now allocated towards diversity programs and special education. While I think there can be some value in these things, on a case-by-case basis, they're largely a waste.

I'm usually right there with anyone who wants to run down our current abomination of an education system, but many schools do still offer things like AP courses, things like band competitions and athletics competitions, and so on. And many schools offer things like extra-curricular language courses, "mathletics" or whatever term they use, as well.

I've got a couple of pretty damned impressive nieces and get to hear all the stories at every family gathering.

Our school systems suck, but damn them for what they deserve.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 07, 2022, 06:20:41 AM

How is it strawmanning to use a historical example that demonstrates the flaw in the thesis that "assholes" won't magically turn into "freedom-loving rational actors" after they win?

First of all, that's not what said. What I said was, it's not stawmanning to respond directly to your own arguments. That is, if my arguments were strawman arguments(they weren't), you're the one who gave me the chance to make them. You are the one who was using armed revolution and the revolutionary war in your argument, I was just responding to that. That's not strawmanning.

And why doesnt that work as an argument? Well, to start with, because you aren't George Washington, it's not ~350 years ago, because the demographics involved are radically different, because society is radically different, because... Well, because basically every single thing that can be different, is different.

As well to say we can't allow British ships near our shores today because they might impress our dock workers. Or that France is our strongest military ally.

Beyond that, one example does not a pattern make. The American revolution turned out well. How many revolutions turned into a shitshow afterwords, instead? I've never explicitly counted, but I'm going to say revolutions that end well, and don't devolve into a carnival of tyranny, excess, corruption, or just incompetence are are the exception, not the rule.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 07, 2022, 08:57:01 AM
Beyond that, one example does not a pattern make. The American revolution turned out well. How many revolutions turned into a shitshow afterwords, instead? I've never explicitly counted, but I'm going to say revolutions that end well, and don't devolve into a carnival of tyranny, excess, corruption, or just incompetence are are the exception, not the rule.

Sure, but also:

(https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/98260f93a014dc5c307e664d8d9b2d7ae6d92d97f24c9c21c14dda22657c32a9_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 07, 2022, 11:39:00 AM
Sure, but also:

(https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/98260f93a014dc5c307e664d8d9b2d7ae6d92d97f24c9c21c14dda22657c32a9_1.jpg)

That... doesn't refute anything I said.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 07, 2022, 12:19:36 PM
That... doesn't refute anything I said.

I'm not trying refute anything you said. I agree with it, but with context.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 07, 2022, 12:35:34 PM
I'm generally all for compromise, but compromise implies a give and take situation.  I can't see that leftists ever give anything, they just take.  We give them an inch, they take a mile. 

Let's take as an example - one of many I could use - the Civil Rights movement, specifically school integration.  American Blacks and their white liberal allies had become convinced that the only way black kids would ever get equal educational resources was by integrating white schools.  And in fact, "separate but equal" really was  a lie, since in no way were facilities for black children, salaries for black schoolteachers, etc. equal to the white ones (at least in the South).  Most Americans, including the white majority, agreed with this and so the compromise of public school integration eventually happened, albeit over resistance.

When the test scores of black children didn't get any better, then liberals argued that we needed more black teachers, as the black kids needed black role models.

By the phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" -- you're implying that the 1950s racial integration was a mistake, and there should have been even greater resistance. That equalizing resources without integration would have been a reasonable route. I think this is spurious. After school integration, there was a marked improvement in black student scores. It's just that it did not bring score all the way to parity, which is not surprising given that there remain many disparities outside of school.

U.S. schools continue to be primarily locally funded, so schools in rich neighborhoods have much better resources than schools in poor neighborhoods.

Here's a graph from NAEP data. You'll see that black scores have gone up more rapidly than white score since 1971 when NAEP was started.

(https://lh5.ggpht.com/_LeZiv6e0MuU/S4tVV2_acuI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/YRd8RV8PrnA/20090509-usa.png)
Source: https://huebler.blogspot.com/2009/05/usa.html

In the bigger narrative, the American school system of the 1950s was not particularly good. It was a factory drill-and-kill system from the early 1900s that emphasized memorization over understanding. It was just better than its competition in WWII-devastated Europe and East Asia at the time. Since the 1950s, many countries in Europe and East Asia have put major effort into improving their school systems, while the U.S. has not. There are some U.S. states, like Massachusetts, that have a top-notch education systems. But it is state-by-state, and most states have not put in the effort.

We have slight improvement over time as shown by the NAEP scores, but other countries have shown much more improvement.

In particular, I would dispute these:

But black graduation rates and test scores still didn't rise, so then it was argued that we had to dumb down the curriculum.  This too happened, as the politicians making the decisions and the influential journalists pushing for them sent their kids to private schools or public schools in rich, all-white areas anyway.

Then it was argued that black children, especially boys, didn't react to discipline well and needed to be able to "act out" (i.e., misbehave without any negative consequences).  Again, this happened.

I already mention test scores, and I also disagree about graduation rates. Since the 1950s, black student graduation rates have improved even more markedly than test scores.

(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2020/06/black-high-school-attainment-nearly-on-par-with-national-average-figure-04.jpg)

I also do not agree that nationwide schools were dumbed down and reduced in discipline in order to accommodate black students. As shown above, compared to the 1950s, we now have greater percentage of low-income students of all races who are completing high school. Comparing apples to apples, these are students who before had less overall education, and educational attainment has improved among all races.

To the degree that there has been anything like this, it hasn't come from liberals. The biggest push for leveling has come from conservatives - specifically George H.W. Bush and the "No Child Left Behind" policy, that pushed on metrics to equalize test scores for all races. This did lead to attempts to normalize test scores by any means, which usually means muddying the stats.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on December 07, 2022, 01:17:06 PM
We have proof that Dems used database latency to make mass change of address requests on voters for mail ballots that are undeliverable due to bad zip codes which are then collected by a bad actor after which the zip codes are changed back in the voter rolls database. Then those "undeliverable" ballots are brought into polling locations under the cover of various facility issues (flooding, loss of power, fire, etc.) that cleared the building of occupants that could watch them do it
LOL.  No there is zero evidence that this occurred.
Do some actual research on the grifter who is advancing that ridiculous theory.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Willmark on December 07, 2022, 05:13:31 PM
That's not going to make reconcilliation more viable. It's already being portrayed as the Worst Thing Evar by the left.

Funny how communists get mad when they can't control what people say...
Indeed the whole “I’m leaving Twitter” feet stomp sounds a lot like the “I’m on saving for Canada.” Yet they are still here.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Willmark on December 07, 2022, 05:41:12 PM
I don't think reconciliation is possible no.

Where would the left even start?

Would they apologize for the 2020 riots? The people they murdered?
Would they admit to spending the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency lying about him? What would they do to atone for the propaganda and fear mongering?
Are the voter base going to stop voting for the Democratic politicians that has become nothing but woke progressive liars?
Are those politicians going to resign?
Are they going to dismantle their own propaganda machine? Will they rise up against deplatforming and suppression?
Will they actually start caring about left wing issues again as something more than just a pretense?

Obviously not. I think if there is one thing the left actually wants it is to retain things as they are. They're not going to wake up, go 'oh gods what have we become' and try to atone. Those who do will do like Tulsi and leave. Any hope of reconciliation requires reforming the modern left into something that isn't just a lie, and any hope of that died in 2020.

But you just hit the nail on the head.  Tulsi Gabbard is, to the left, worse than a traitor, because she can clearly articulate to the public just exactly how fucked up their agenda is.

But let's be clear.  It isn't that there are all these leftists who organically just want to be activists for bledding-heart causes. They are useful idiots for a ChiCom (primarily) communist agenda.  The CCP owns many US politicians and business leaders - across the political spectrum.  Ask yourself who benefits from an agenda that proposes that sexually confused teens take hormone blockers and chop off body parts and don't engage in traditional gender roles. Ask yourself who benefits from having a citizenry divided amongst itself. Or that allows an unchecked horde of non-loyal immigrants. Or that allows foreign holding companies to buy real estate and businesses, including farmland and facilities in the food and energy sectors? How many other "10% to the big guy" criminal activities are going on that haven't come to light?  Why did a group of both Dem and Rep senators try to stifle the SEC investigation of FTX?  How many pols of both parties continue to miraculous beat the S&P 500? Follow the money.

How many other countries tolerate any of this?  Go ahead and try dissenting in China and see how quickly you end up in a reeducation prison.

We are a nation divided, led by an administrative state that is not loyal to the principles the country was founded on, and society is in moral decay.  The US *is* the Roman Empire under Caligula and Nero.

You nailed it on the head 100%. I've been saying this for twenty years now. the comparisons to the late Roman empire are frightening:
-a politically divided population: in the late Roman Empire it was the supporters of the Senate vs the Emperor. In the USA today, it's the extremes of left and right vying for control of the center.
-borders that are not under control: late Roman empire is was invasions of Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc. Today in the US: illegal immigration from Mexico , Central America, and Caribbean.
- fighting several costly wars: late Roman Empire: fighting barbarian invasions. USA today: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
- over-taxed citizens
there are others, but I think these are the ones that are key. Ultimately, the Roman Empire decayed from the inside, and pressures from outside dealt the death blow. Mind you, this didn't happen all at once. The Roman Empire's decline took several hundred years. IMO, the decline of the US is already in progress and been in decline since the late 60s. I would say in the next 50 years, the United States as it is today will no longer exist. It will be a dim shadow of itself. but this is the way of the world since the beginning of time. Empires and nations rise and fall. It's inevitable.

And sad.

At least for me. Most of my life I believed in the American Dream. A good portion of that was also spent defending those beliefs, the Constitution, and freedom. Now? This nation is slowly falling apart. Too much extremes. Nobody willing to take the center road for the common good of all. Corruption, greed, and loss of it's moral center. "A house divided cannot stand". Well, let it fall. Let it burn. Let it come crashing down. I'm ready. My family is ready. We've been ready for the coming shit storm for years. If neither one of you extreme assholes out there aren't willing to swallow your pride and come to a common ground with each other, well, I got news for ya. BOTH of you are screwed. We're all screwed.

Let. It. Burn.
Petty much accurate and a lot of ways, with you 100% on your last paragraph. America is too far gone, I've heard it said on other topics "its all over accept for the crying". Pretty much.

America it could be argued peaked in December 1972 when we left the moon and has been on a long slow decline ever since. No need to rehash every single event we all know them from the end of the post warm boom, oil embargo to the present day, etc.

I also think your pointing out of Rome is accurate as it mirrors my own thoughts on the matter. I'll add the people called themselves (likely) Roman for a period of time after the Empire fell. Its not likely they realized it all at once. Just like we are doing now, calling ourselves American but many not realizing that doesn't mean anything anymore.

Now we have one side of the political spectrum saying that "America was never great". It was, (likely not for all) but it was great, it always strove for an idea of being better, of being great and living up to the ideals of our founding.

That has vanished when you have the left side of politics looking to remake us into some Americanized version of Europe? No thanks. Every bit that they finger wag at us about not having like "free healthcare". Yeah its free alright, subsidized by the American tax payer since the end of WW2. The problem isn't the US isn't like Europe enough, the problem is the US isn't like the US enough.

Like you I suspect I just want to be left alone. For the longest time I've tried to stay out of politics (to a degree) and live my life freely. Unfortunately that upsets the Left so be default I'm forced to at least ally with the Republicans. Even that is a losing game in my opinion.

I don't foresee any path forward that doesn't end badly.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 07, 2022, 07:06:28 PM
I'm generally all for compromise, but compromise implies a give and take situation.  I can't see that leftists ever give anything, they just take.  We give them an inch, they take a mile. 

Let's take as an example - one of many I could use - the Civil Rights movement, specifically school integration.  American Blacks and their white liberal allies had become convinced that the only way black kids would ever get equal educational resources was by integrating white schools.  And in fact, "separate but equal" really was  a lie, since in no way were facilities for black children, salaries for black schoolteachers, etc. equal to the white ones (at least in the South).  Most Americans, including the white majority, agreed with this and so the compromise of public school integration eventually happened, albeit over resistance.

When the test scores of black children didn't get any better, then liberals argued that we needed more black teachers, as the black kids needed black role models.

By the phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" -- you're implying that the 1950s racial integration was a mistake, and there should have been even greater resistance. That equalizing resources without integration would have been a reasonable route. I think this is spurious. After school integration, there was a marked improvement in black student scores. It's just that it did not bring score all the way to parity, which is not surprising given that there remain many disparities outside of school.

U.S. schools continue to be primarily locally funded, so schools in rich neighborhoods have much better resources than schools in poor neighborhoods.

Here's a graph from NAEP data. You'll see that black scores have gone up more rapidly than white score since 1971 when NAEP was started.

(https://lh5.ggpht.com/_LeZiv6e0MuU/S4tVV2_acuI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/YRd8RV8PrnA/20090509-usa.png)
Source: https://huebler.blogspot.com/2009/05/usa.html

In the bigger narrative, the American school system of the 1950s was not particularly good. It was a factory drill-and-kill system from the early 1900s that emphasized memorization over understanding. It was just better than its competition in WWII-devastated Europe and East Asia at the time. Since the 1950s, many countries in Europe and East Asia have put major effort into improving their school systems, while the U.S. has not. There are some U.S. states, like Massachusetts, that have a top-notch education systems. But it is state-by-state, and most states have not put in the effort.

We have slight improvement over time as shown by the NAEP scores, but other countries have shown much more improvement.

In particular, I would dispute these:

But black graduation rates and test scores still didn't rise, so then it was argued that we had to dumb down the curriculum.  This too happened, as the politicians making the decisions and the influential journalists pushing for them sent their kids to private schools or public schools in rich, all-white areas anyway.

Then it was argued that black children, especially boys, didn't react to discipline well and needed to be able to "act out" (i.e., misbehave without any negative consequences).  Again, this happened.

I already mention test scores, and I also disagree about graduation rates. Since the 1950s, black student graduation rates have improved even more markedly than test scores.

(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2020/06/black-high-school-attainment-nearly-on-par-with-national-average-figure-04.jpg)

I also do not agree that nationwide schools were dumbed down and reduced in discipline in order to accommodate black students. As shown above, compared to the 1950s, we now have greater percentage of low-income students of all races who are completing high school. Comparing apples to apples, these are students who before had less overall education, and educational attainment has improved among all races.

To the degree that there has been anything like this, it hasn't come from liberals. The biggest push for leveling has come from conservatives - specifically George H.W. Bush and the "No Child Left Behind" policy, that pushed on metrics to equalize test scores for all races. This did lead to attempts to normalize test scores by any means, which usually means muddying the stats.

Completing high school and going to college at higher rates *isn't* a success story when the increase is due to lower standards and social promotion for minority students and "the poors" with a simultaneous sense of entitlement with grade inflation and participation trophies for the suburban white kids.  Minimal effort doesn't breed success except for those willing to cheat their way there - which is how we get businesses and government run by crooks who cheated their way through school and continued doing so afterwards - not smart enough to actually do the job, but just cunning and devious enough to slither their way into the job.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 07, 2022, 07:50:30 PM
Leave it to people in academia to claim academia isn't worse than it used to be.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Daztur on December 07, 2022, 08:59:12 PM
If things are as bad as some seem to think, the time to fight is now.  Otherwise, they'll round you up before you ever get around to it based on your internet posts.

Exactly, except of course, they won't. They are a bunch of keyboard warriors. They know that if they actually fight they have already lost, particularly when considering that the moderates are also on the shit list, and that they themselves (the "warriors" here) aren't exactly unified either (also notice the chaotic bunch that was the Jan 6 crowd)  ;D

What gives me the most hope for the future is, whatever you can say about the original fascists a whole lot of them were hardass veterans of WW I trench warfare. 21st century fascists though? 99% of them are a bunch of angry idiots shouting on the internet who'll never actually do anything. It's important for sane people to arm themselves as the current crop of fascists are generally cowardly loudmouths who would never ever get involved in a fair fight.

  First the fascists are imaginary.   There are pretty much a non population in the USA.  Second, if you think there are no people who can and will fight in the USA over some of the bullshit going on (or is it fascist to not be instantly on board with boys in the girls locker rooms and letting trannies hang around elementary school kids) you are going to FAFO.   Thanks to the global american empire policy of bombing everyone into democracy for decades now there are A LOT of combat veterans in the USA.  A lot of them are being demonized in society openly for just being white.   Good luck on how that turns out once dip shits go too far.

I'm sure I'm just imagining all of the unhinged rhetoric in this very thread, including support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US. But I guess I should just believe you and not my lying eyes.

I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot, far better to keep priests and other groups with a proven track record of going after kids, and I'm not going to FAFO because the modern far right are cowards. They're going to shout at clouds a lot, become increasingly irrelevant, and then get old, die, and be forgotten. I hope that sane people in the US continue to arm themselves at increasing rates as modern fascists can easily be scared off by a few guns.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 07, 2022, 09:09:00 PM
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot

Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 07, 2022, 09:25:39 PM
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” -Trump

"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad

"support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US" - Daztur quoting two other posters here.

Look, guys, it's gonna be harder and harder to deny fascism when it's "terminate the rules of the Constitution for my cause" and "women shouldn't be able to vote" and "re-segregate the population based on race" and "kill the half of the population I disagree with."  And I've NEVER been one of those guys claiming the right is fascist in America. But this shit is crossing that line rapidly.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 07, 2022, 09:25:53 PM
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot

Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.

There's nothing extreme about it, you have a very sensible, centrist position.
The idea that you should accept children being exposed to mentally-ill perverts is clearly an extremist position.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2022, 09:26:16 PM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles  A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions.  Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

P.S.  So called "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" folks are the very worst, the lowest of the low.  They want to be liberal, but they actually made (or inherited) money, so, unlike their "eat the rich" compatriots, they don't even have the integrity to reject their own wealth.  They want their money, but their liberal values at the same time.  Truly principle-less...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 07, 2022, 09:31:23 PM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on December 07, 2022, 09:50:33 PM
I'm sure I'm just imagining all of the unhinged rhetoric in this very thread, including support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US. But I guess I should just believe you and not my lying eyes.

The left seems to be much more obsessed with segregation.  Surely you've heard of black-only spaces at universities because the presence of white faces in black spaces is harmful.  Black-only dorms for the same reason.  GenCon had a room for BIPOC only creators. 

I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot, far better to keep priests and other groups with a proven track record of going after kids, and I'm not going to FAFO because the modern far right are cowards. They're going to shout at clouds a lot, become increasingly irrelevant, and then get old, die, and be forgotten. I hope that sane people in the US continue to arm themselves at increasing rates as modern fascists can easily be scared off by a few guns.
It's a statistical fact that children are 3 times more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest.  Allowing blatant sexual deviants/exhibitionists into class rooms will surely make it worse.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 08, 2022, 12:59:55 AM
Allowing blatant sexual deviants/exhibitionists

Being transgendered isn't in itself related to having sex of any kind.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 08, 2022, 03:18:57 AM
Completing high school and going to college at higher rates *isn't* a success story when the increase is due to lower standards and social promotion for minority students and "the poors" with a simultaneous sense of entitlement with grade inflation and participation trophies for the suburban white kids.  Minimal effort doesn't breed success except for those willing to cheat their way there - which is how we get businesses and government run by crooks who cheated their way through school and continued doing so afterwards - not smart enough to actually do the job, but just cunning and devious enough to slither their way into the job.

According to poster "I", black students' unchanged high school test scores and dropout rate after 1950s school integration was proof of failure. I (jhkim) pointed out that this wasn't true - that black students' test scores and dropout rate improved. But you (3catcircus) claim that this evidence doesn't mean anything.

This seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If black students' don't show improvement (as "I" claimed), it shows that 1950s school integration was a failure. If they do show improvement, it shows the dumbing down and cheating crooks, you say.

I'd agree that there are businesses and government run by crooks and cheats - but I don't think that 1950s school integration caused any increase in this. From my reading of history, there was rampant corruption in businesses and government in the 1920s, 1930s, and other decades well before the 1950s school integration.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 08, 2022, 06:27:58 AM
don't think that 1950s school integration caused any increase in this.

There's this dude named Thomas Sowell who directly addresses these problems in many of his books. Considering he lived in Harlem pre-desegregation and considers his education superior to that after the segregationists "improved" schooling, I'd tend to take his direct experience and research more seriously than some race grifters who've been pushing a bunch of complete bullshit since the 1960s. YMMV.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 08, 2022, 06:52:35 AM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Every time you type, you make it worse.  Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle.   What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have.  So, if you believe in freedom,  every policy should maximize freedom,  along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well.  Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where  convenient.   I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 08, 2022, 07:46:24 AM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Every time you type, you make it worse.  Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle.   What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have.  So, if you believe in freedom,  every policy should maximize freedom,  along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well.  Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where  convenient.   I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
I would suggest their overarching principle is either “doesn’t want to be harassed by the radical woke” or “wants to be liked by a social circle that is already partially woke.”
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 08, 2022, 10:09:16 AM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Every time you type, you make it worse.  Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle.   What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have.  So, if you believe in freedom,  every policy should maximize freedom,  along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well.  Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where  convenient.   I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...

What does "overarching" mean in your "overarching principle that fits with your..." sentence if you're not trying to force all policies into one principal? And where is YOUR list of principals for each of those policy issues?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 08, 2022, 10:50:48 AM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Every time you type, you make it worse.  Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle.   What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have.  So, if you believe in freedom,  every policy should maximize freedom,  along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well.  Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where  convenient.   I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
I would suggest their overarching principle is either “doesn’t want to be harassed by the radical woke” or “wants to be liked by a social circle that is already partially woke.”

More like "when you grow up you'll learn that life is complex."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 08, 2022, 11:24:18 AM
"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad

That's not what the 19th Amendment actually says, though. Here is the text:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Doesn't say women at all. It can be interpreted that way, and usually is, but it means you cannot be discriminatory based purely on sex. Contrast this with the provision that you must be a citizen to vote. People who do not pay taxes or fight in the military are not citizens in the sense the word was used when the Constitution was written. There has to be some skin in the game to be involved in the decision making process. Hence, by misinterpreting the 19th to basically say "women can vote now!" the concept of citizenship is watered down to such a degree that mouthbreathing morons who leech off the government teat and contribute nothing have just as big a voice as productive members of society.

This logic can be applied to the 15th as well. A citizen is a net boon on society, and limiting voting rights for arbitrary reasons is illogical when the definition of "citizen" is considered fully. While the US is not Roman, the concept of citizen has classical roots and ignoring those roots is why dumbasses jump to fucktard conclusions when statements are made they assume they understand.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 08, 2022, 11:39:10 AM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Every time you type, you make it worse.  Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle.   What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have.  So, if you believe in freedom,  every policy should maximize freedom,  along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well.  Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where  convenient.   I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...
I would suggest their overarching principle is either “doesn’t want to be harassed by the radical woke” or “wants to be liked by a social circle that is already partially woke.”

More like "when you grow up you'll learn that life is complex."

Ain't that the truth.

I think it's what most extremists suffer from - a failure to become a mature adult and acknowledge nuance and complexity, clinging to the child-like comfort of fitting everything neatly into black and white boxes with labels and that never vary or need face any challenge from facts.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 08, 2022, 11:43:22 AM
"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad

That's not what the 19th Amendment actually says, though. Here is the text:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Doesn't say women at all. It can be interpreted that way, and usually is, but it means you cannot be discriminatory based purely on sex. Contrast this with the provision that you must be a citizen to vote. People who do not pay taxes or fight in the military are not citizens in the sense the word was used when the Constitution was written. There has to be some skin in the game to be involved in the decision making process. Hence, by misinterpreting the 19th to basically say "women can vote now!" the concept of citizenship is watered down to such a degree that mouthbreathing morons who leech off the government teat and contribute nothing have just as big a voice as productive members of society.

This logic can be applied to the 15th as well. A citizen is a net boon on society, and limiting voting rights for arbitrary reasons is illogical when the definition of "citizen" is considered fully. While the US is not Roman, the concept of citizen has classical roots and ignoring those roots is why dumbasses jump to fucktard conclusions when statements are made they assume they understand.

There is simply no question at all that the context of crafting and passing the 19th amendment was in fact "women can vote now!" It's not misinterpreting anything, that is what it meant, and a shallow or deep look at history proves that's exactly what it meant. Now it includes "citizen" of course and doesn't water down the concept or requirement that you be a citizen to vote, but it absolute added "women!" to those citizens who could vote.

The 19th amendment was not a mistake. Sexist assholes however will pretend it was for bullshit reasons. And lets none of us pretend you're somehow not a sexist these days - remember you're the douchenozzle who had a pedo-looking girl porn avatar right here until Pundit asked you to knock it off. Pundit - who runs this place as close to free speech absolutist as they come, it took him saying "Dude, WTF with that sexist avatar?" for you to replace it. You're the most prominent, maybe the only, blatant sexist around here and you trying to pretend "Oh I was talking about watering down the meaning of citizenship when I said the 19th amendment was a mistake" is a heaping mound of bullshit any of us can spot from a mile off given your reputation and history here.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 08, 2022, 12:58:27 PM
There is simply no question at all that the context of crafting and passing the 19th amendment was in fact "women can vote now!" It's not misinterpreting anything, that is what it meant, and a shallow or deep look at history proves that's exactly what it meant. Now it includes "citizen" of course and doesn't water down the concept or requirement that you be a citizen to vote, but it absolute added "women!" to those citizens who could vote.

The 19th amendment was not a mistake. Sexist assholes however will pretend it was for bullshit reasons. And lets none of us pretend you're somehow not a sexist these days - remember you're the douchenozzle who had a pedo-looking girl porn avatar right here until Pundit asked you to knock it off. Pundit - who runs this place as close to free speech absolutist as they come, it took him saying "Dude, WTF with that sexist avatar?" for you to replace it. You're the most prominent, maybe the only, blatant sexist around here and you trying to pretend "Oh I was talking about watering down the meaning of citizenship when I said the 19th amendment was a mistake" is a heaping mound of bullshit any of us can spot from a mile off given your reputation and history here.

Nahh.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on December 08, 2022, 01:15:16 PM
And here we are today with one of the world's shittiest public school systems, with many public school students routinely graduated not knowing how to read above an eighth-grade level and not really being equipped to get any sort of decent-paying job...

While I'd echo most of what you said, one thing to be cautious of here is the misleading nature of aggregated data. The Program for International Student Assessment, for example, shows that American students perform roughly equivalently to European students in their standardized testing. Broader USA school underperformance is easily understood because it's a more heterogenous group. Places like Texas that have regions that are majority-hispanic perform roughly equivalently to countries like Mexico on standardized testing.

As should be apparent to even the veriest idiot, a better way to handle all of this would have been to either equalize school resources or fully integrate and then end it there.

I'll disagree with this point here. There is no value-neutral way to allocate resources. The value-neutral thing is important, because that's the whole reason why we theoretically favor "equality." But "equality" is a fraud. It's a cop-out for a real argument.

When I was in school, we had a special program for the students that were more intelligent. The school allocated additional resources for us to give us an advantage, and in turn we represented the school in competitions and events that helped us (theoretically) bring prestige and accolades. We sent our best musicians to play in concerts, and we send our best athletes in competitions.

These days I don't think most (USA) schools have this kind of program anymore. These resources are now allocated towards diversity programs and special education. While I think there can be some value in these things, on a case-by-case basis, they're largely a waste.

More important is the broader principle: should you cultivate the talents of the most promising, or strive endlessly to bring up the least talented? The former strategy works, the latter strategy does not work. Yet "equality" is predicated on the latter strategy. That's not a way to make a functional society.

I agree with everything you said.  I think that European schools are getting crappier though and have been for a long time, so it doesn't much surprise me that American students generally do about as well as European ones today.  They are both dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.

By "equality," I simply meant providing equal access to resources as nearly as possible.  Heated, insulated school buildings vs. wooden shacks heated by potbelly stove, for example.  Teachers paid the same but held to the same educational standards, not paid less just because they're black (and certainly not hired just because they're black).  I didn't mean equality of outcome  -- that's a utopian pipe dream and always will be.  I think you have mistaken my usage of the word "equality" for "equity."  I am for equality of opportunity, NOT this "equity" bullshit that liberals are pushing.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 08, 2022, 01:50:00 PM
I'd agree that there are businesses and government run by crooks and cheats - but I don't think that 1950s school integration caused any increase in this. From my reading of history, there was rampant corruption in businesses and government in the 1920s, 1930s, and other decades well before the 1950s school integration.

There's this dude named Thomas Sowell who directly addresses these problems in many of his books. Considering he lived in Harlem pre-desegregation and considers his education superior to that after the segregationists "improved" schooling, I'd tend to take his direct experience and research more seriously than some race grifters who've been pushing a bunch of complete bullshit since the 1960s. YMMV.

I think you mean "desegregationists" in the bolded reference. As for the race grifters and desegregationists who have been pushing bullshit since the 1960s, those are people like Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, etc.

So yes, my mileage does vary. These leaders had just as much experience with segregation as Thomas Sowell, having grown up in segregated society. The push for desegregation in the 1960s was not a bunch of bullshit, nor were the leaders who pushed for it "race grifters".
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on December 08, 2022, 01:56:18 PM

By the phrase "give an inch and they'll take a mile" -- you're implying that the 1950s racial integration was a mistake, and there should have been even greater resistance. That equalizing resources without integration would have been a reasonable route. I think this is spurious. After school integration, there was a marked improvement in black student scores. It's just that it did not bring score all the way to parity, which is not surprising given that there remain many disparities outside of school. Here's a graph from NAEP data. You'll see that black scores have gone up more rapidly than white score since 1971 when NAEP was started.


I'm implying no such thing -- as I went to pains to point out, the allocation of resources wasn't equal.  The resources should have been equalized as nearly as possible and that was all, though.  The other stuff -- discriminating against qualified white teachers, holding black students to different educational and disciplinary standards -- is equity bullshit and I am definitely against it.  It's your side that discriminates against whites and Asians these days, not mine.  No wonder you liberals see an orc and immediately think "black person"  -- liberals REALLY DO think blacks are inherently stupid and violent like orcs and should therefore be held to lesser standards, the same way society (correctly, btw) treats juveniles and mental defectives.

I also don't buy the "disparity of resources" argument, since the kids of poor Latin American peasants, poor Southeast Asians, etc. routinely do as well or even outperform kids of my own WASP ethnicity.  There certainly seems to be a disparity of how much the parents of various ethnic groups value education, though.  Which is on them, not me, and discriminating against one to artificially boost graduation rates and test scores of the other is not helpful.

Thank you for providing all of that data.  I enjoy debating with you because you never lose your temper and always try to support your arguments with hard facts.  However, in this case I don't think you've proven anything.  Of course graduation rates and educational attainment have improved -- the school have been dumbed down to achieve just such a thing.  Look, I worked in a public library for nearly ten years and one of my main jobs was to help connect students to resources they needed in order to complete assignments.  And it wasn't at all uncommon for me to encounter high school and even college students who had no frigging idea how to even begin writing a paper.  They couldn't even find a book on a shelf.  How the hell did they get that far into school?  Students like that make up those positive-seeming statistics of yours.  "Look at how many more black kids graduate high school today than in the past!"  Yeah, they graduate not knowing how to read or write, herded like cattle through a chute into an adulthood they are not educationally fit for yet.  And white liberals pat themselves on the back for this while black liberals think they've won some sort of victory.  Pathetic.

As for educational standards being lowered and lax discipline in public schools -- if you think those things aren't true, then I'm not going to bother trying to convince you otherwise.  I just don't have the energy.  They are so well-established at this point, so much a part of common knowledge, so much a part of the personal experience of most of us, that it would be a waste of time.  If you don't believe these things by now, I'll just say you're in a state of denial and leave it at that.

That said, I do appreciate your taking the effort to provide such a detailed response to me.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 08, 2022, 04:02:08 PM
I think you mean "desegregationists" in the bolded reference. As for the race grifters and desegregationists who have been pushing bullshit since the 1960s, those are people like Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, etc.

So yes, my mileage does vary. These leaders had just as much experience with segregation as Thomas Sowell, having grown up in segregated society. The push for desegregation in the 1960s was not a bunch of bullshit, nor were the leaders who pushed for it "race grifters".

You totally missed the point, but that is to be expected. MLK and Rosa Parks have nothing to do with what I said and you know it. But go ahead, continue to be a disingenuous CCP shill.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 08, 2022, 05:14:50 PM
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” -Trump

"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad

"support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US" - Daztur quoting two other posters here.

Look, guys, it's gonna be harder and harder to deny fascism when it's "terminate the rules of the Constitution for my cause" and "women shouldn't be able to vote" and "re-segregate the population based on race" and "kill the half of the population I disagree with."  And I've NEVER been one of those guys claiming the right is fascist in America. But this shit is crossing that line rapidly.

This is the problem with the "we're more nuanced" leftists.  At no point did he state we should suspend the constitution as a whole. What he said was that the rules governing elections - even those in the constitution - should be disregarded if there is no other way to obtain relief in the face of demonstrable criminal election activity that resulted in the fraudulent installation of Biden into the white house.

This is common sense - if the rules dictate that you can't reliably remove a fraudulent electee after the fact if it had been proven to be fraudulent, then you *should* ignore those rules.

Hell - the process of proposing, running, and electing candidates is done by *private* political parties. Who the hell thinks that private clubs should be allowed to dictate who gets to run for political office to begin with?!?!?!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 08, 2022, 05:50:47 PM
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot

Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.

So here's the conundrum.  Are there transgendered people who you'd never know are transgendered unless you're bumping uglies with them?  Yes - there are - and they're quietly passable and monogamous . I have no issues with them living their lives. I have no problems with them teaching. They've clearly decided they're going all the way to become the other - including cutting off body parts, adding body parts, etc. Which is clearly a form of mental instability - but they're not pushing their crazy on anyone else and claiming that it's both normal and desirous for anyone else to do so.

The problem is that the transgendered that are teaching children are pretty much men in dresses or manly wimmenists with blue hair and nose rings and they're activist crusaders who have a compulsion to try and tell everyone around them about their private lives and convert others to their cause - and that's a problem when dealing with highly impressionable children. It's even more of a problem when the statistics show that the reason that many of them *are* trans is *because* they were molested as kids and *will* go on to molest kids themselves.

And it isn't even the "standard M2F" trans that this manifests as - it's stuff like the "can't tell what it is because it's purposely chosen to be confusing by growing a mustache and wear a dress and then demanding redress when someone can't figure out whether it's a man or a woman" like the DoE secretary currently in the news for stealing luggage and who is currently rumored to be under investigation for having sex with *actual* dogs.  We don't need someone who is clearly mentally ill in any position of authority of any kind - whether nuclear waste or teaching kids.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 08, 2022, 05:58:39 PM
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” -Trump

"The 19th Amendment [giving women the right to vote] was a mistake." -Brad

"support for segregation and one poster wanting to kill half of the population of the US" - Daztur quoting two other posters here.

Look, guys, it's gonna be harder and harder to deny fascism when it's "terminate the rules of the Constitution for my cause" and "women shouldn't be able to vote" and "re-segregate the population based on race" and "kill the half of the population I disagree with."  And I've NEVER been one of those guys claiming the right is fascist in America. But this shit is crossing that line rapidly.

This is the problem with the "we're more nuanced" leftists.  At no point did he state we should suspend the constitution as a whole. What he said was that the rules governing elections - even those in the constitution - should be disregarded if there is no other way to obtain relief in the face of demonstrable criminal election activity that resulted in the fraudulent installation of Biden into the white house.

And that should be horrifying to you. That you think that distinction makes this "OK" is fucking horrifying. WTF could conceivably be wrong with your brain that you think the rules in the US Constitution regarding elections should be "disregarded" concerning a matter of elections? You understand THAT'S THE ENTIRE UNDERPINNING OF A CONSTITUTION-BASED DEMOCRACY, right? That if the rules regarding how to elect the leader of the nation for which that Constitutional applies should be disregarded because some fucker claims fraud but cannot prove it using the very court system set up for that issue, THAT IS FASCISM. There is no two ways about it - that is exactly how a Democracy dies and Fascism begins, where you override the very governing Constitution to put a leader in place.

Quote
This is common sense

No, this is insanity! In no way is it "common sense" that a nation should disregard the Constitutional rules for elections to change an election result.

Quote
- if the rules dictate that you can't reliably remove a fraudulent electee after the fact if it had been proven to be fraudulent, then you *should* ignore those rules.

But nobody "proved" a fraudulent electee! The courts have not held it was fraud at all, the legislatures have not held it was fraud at all, no Constitutional body or Constitutional procedure has found it was fraud! You're advocating for a dictatorship where the rules of elections should be disregarded because you don't like the result and some fucking YouTube clickbait dickwads claim it was fraud and you're angry and stupid. Might as well put your fucking brown coat on already.

Quote
Hell - the process of proposing, running, and electing candidates is done by *private* political parties. Who the hell thinks that private clubs should be allowed to dictate who gets to run for political office to begin with?!?!?!

You are free, in a democracy like ours, to advocate to change the laws. But we're a nation of laws, not of your personal pouty feels, and in our nation of laws you have to obey the Constitution and not disregard it when it doesn't agree with you, you fucking child.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 08, 2022, 07:24:02 PM
Folks, earlier in this thread  I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 08, 2022, 08:25:18 PM
Folks, earlier in this thread  I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.

Yup.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 08, 2022, 08:25:29 PM
I don't see any problem with trans people being teachers or whatnot

Your attitude is exactly why the public school system is failing. No "sane person" with small children wants demonspawn teaching their kids. Oh look, more "extreme rhetoric," right? If I don't like pedophiles teaching my kids, just means I'm a bigot.

So here's the conundrum.  Are there transgendered people who you'd never know are transgendered unless you're bumping uglies with them?  Yes - there are - and they're quietly passable and monogamous . I have no issues with them living their lives. I have no problems with them teaching. They've clearly decided they're going all the way to become the other - including cutting off body parts, adding body parts, etc. Which is clearly a form of mental instability - but they're not pushing their crazy on anyone else and claiming that it's both normal and desirous for anyone else to do so.

The problem is that the transgendered that are teaching children are pretty much men in dresses or manly wimmenists with blue hair and nose rings and they're activist crusaders who have a compulsion to try and tell everyone around them about their private lives and convert others to their cause - and that's a problem when dealing with highly impressionable children. It's even more of a problem when the statistics show that the reason that many of them *are* trans is *because* they were molested as kids and *will* go on to molest kids themselves.

And it isn't even the "standard M2F" trans that this manifests as - it's stuff like the "can't tell what it is because it's purposely chosen to be confusing by growing a mustache and wear a dress and then demanding redress when someone can't figure out whether it's a man or a woman" like the DoE secretary currently in the news for stealing luggage and who is currently rumored to be under investigation for having sex with *actual* dogs.  We don't need someone who is clearly mentally ill in any position of authority of any kind - whether nuclear waste or teaching kids.

Look into desistance. It's a tragedy that the trans activist community turns on people who regret their transitions. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2HYucdoUuk&t=6s) The running theme is that a young girl who is having issues with her puberty is presupposed to be trans, given hormones and surgery, and then whoopsie, doodles, they desist and turn out to be bi or gay or had some kind of mental trauma and/or abuse behind their desire to transition, instead of being actually trans.

And there are trans people, like Buck Angel and Blair White who rightfully are calling this nonsense out.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 08, 2022, 08:43:42 PM
Folks, earlier in this thread  I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.

I said hey, work with moderates if you want to get somewhere. I was told moderates are "worse than" leftists because we don't believe anything. I explained how we do believe things just as principled and passionately as anyone else, but here we are again. We're irrational and not discussing in good faith if we don't just agree with what you say. You want to put us in a black and white firm label and place for everything and when we say that's not reality it's called "weasel-worded".

Just admit you are not interested in reconciliation and it's your way or the highway. At least the extremist progressives are willing to say that.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 08, 2022, 09:29:37 PM
To "I", I think a big issue is the question of fact, not policy.

Of course graduation rates and educational attainment have improved -- the school have been dumbed down to achieve just such a thing.  Look, I worked in a public library for nearly ten years and one of my main jobs was to help connect students to resources they needed in order to complete assignments.  And it wasn't at all uncommon for me to encounter high school and even college students who had no frigging idea how to even begin writing a paper. They couldn't even find a book on a shelf.  How the hell did they get that far into school?  Students like that make up those positive-seeming statistics of yours.

I taught in public schools in from 2010-2012 and again in 2019, and I also encountered plenty of terrible students. Many of them just couldn't get through the basics of writing. I think the U.S. educational system is terrible. But the question being asked isn't whether it is good or bad, but how it has changed over decades. Personal anecdote is often not a good measure of national trends over decades.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was established by Richard Nixon precisely to measure how basic educational standards like math and reading were being taught. They administer the exact same test every few years at randomly selected schools to observe general trends.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38

The NAEP trend is not uniformly up. There have been downturns, and especially a big downturn with the pandemic. But it also isn't the uniform dumbing down that you describe.

A lot of national statistics aren't the same as people's anecdotal feeling for them. I often find the same in crime statistics, for example. Many people are convinced that crime has gotten uniformly worse decade after decade, which is not the case.

------

Going back to policy questions.

I'm implying no such thing -- as I went to pains to point out, the allocation of resources wasn't equal.  The resources should have been equalized as nearly as possible and that was all, though.  The other stuff -- discriminating against qualified white teachers, holding black students to different educational and disciplinary standards -- is equity bullshit and I am definitely against it.  It's your side that discriminates against whites and Asians these days, not mine.

I don't disagree about most of this, as are many people on the left. Discriminating against white teachers and/or holding black students to different standards does happen, but they aren't universally supported among Democrats. Even in California, attempts to support affirmative action have been shot down - like the defeat of Prop 16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16) in the 2020 election. Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, makes a strong argument against affirmative action.

The thing is, even today, the resources aren't equal. U.S. schools are largely locally funded, and per-student spending varies hugely from district to district. I've taught at rich suburban schools that have carts full of laptops, and seen the difference from poor inner-city schools that struggle for pencils. The racial gap in resources is much smaller than it once was, but there are major differences depending on state and district.

People have different strategies to try to address these continuing disparities in schooling.


I also don't buy the "disparity of resources" argument, since the kids of poor Latin American peasants, poor Southeast Asians, etc. routinely do as well or even outperform kids of my own WASP ethnicity.  There certainly seems to be a disparity of how much the parents of various ethnic groups value education, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "disparity of resources" argument, since it sounded like you were in favor of equality of resources. Overall, what school a kid goes to is only one factor in how they will turn out. Regardless of what we do to schools, there will be a lot of trends because kids home environment, genetics, and other factors are hugely important for how they turn out.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 08, 2022, 09:41:11 PM
And that should be horrifying to you. That you think that distinction makes this "OK" is fucking horrifying. WTF could conceivably be wrong with your brain that you think the rules in the US Constitution regarding elections should be "disregarded" concerning a matter of elections? You understand THAT'S THE ENTIRE UNDERPINNING OF A CONSTITUTION-BASED DEMOCRACY, right? That if the rules regarding how to elect the leader of the nation for which that Constitutional applies should be disregarded because some fucker claims fraud but cannot prove it using the very court system set up for that issue, THAT IS FASCISM. There is no two ways about it - that is exactly how a Democracy dies and Fascism begins, where you override the very governing Constitution to put a leader in place.

Okay, but - setting aside whether or not it *has* been proven to your satisfaction... What if it *were* to be proven to your satisfaction? Plenty of people on the left have, very smugly, pointed out that the constitution doesn't provide for redress or correction adequate for such a situation.

Yes. It should be terrifying. It should also be terrifying that people should have even reached the point it's being seriously discussed, and yet here we are.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 09, 2022, 06:16:18 AM
Folks, earlier in this thread  I said that for reconciliation to happen, you have to be talking to rational people. Just by reading the weasel-worded responses of jhkim and Mistwell, you can tell that the "opposition" is not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.

I said hey, work with moderates if you want to get somewhere. I was told moderates are "worse than" leftists because we don't believe anything. I explained how we do believe things just as principled and passionately as anyone else, but here we are again. We're irrational and not discussing in good faith if we don't just agree with what you say. You want to put us in a black and white firm label and place for everything and when we say that's not reality it's called "weasel-worded".

Just admit you are not interested in reconciliation and it's your way or the highway. At least the extremist progressives are willing to say that.

You are correct. I am not willing to reconcile with the "opposition" when they are not rational and unwilling to discuss the issue in good faith.

I'm sorry that calling out your behavior makes you angry. Truth hurts.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 09, 2022, 01:05:01 PM
And that should be horrifying to you. That you think that distinction makes this "OK" is fucking horrifying. WTF could conceivably be wrong with your brain that you think the rules in the US Constitution regarding elections should be "disregarded" concerning a matter of elections? You understand THAT'S THE ENTIRE UNDERPINNING OF A CONSTITUTION-BASED DEMOCRACY, right? That if the rules regarding how to elect the leader of the nation for which that Constitutional applies should be disregarded because some fucker claims fraud but cannot prove it using the very court system set up for that issue, THAT IS FASCISM. There is no two ways about it - that is exactly how a Democracy dies and Fascism begins, where you override the very governing Constitution to put a leader in place.

Okay, but - setting aside whether or not it *has* been proven to your satisfaction... What if it *were* to be proven to your satisfaction? Plenty of people on the left have, very smugly, pointed out that the constitution doesn't provide for redress or correction adequate for such a situation.

Yes. It should be terrifying. It should also be terrifying that people should have even reached the point it's being seriously discussed, and yet here we are.

In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.

In other countries, there have been many examples of when the government has been overthrown by the military or other armed forces, under the claim that the government's elections were not fairly handled. However, in almost all cases of this, I feel that it was an excuse and there was no effort to give fair voting rights to the opposition after the takeover.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 09, 2022, 01:44:35 PM
No dumbass moderates are as principled as anyone else they just don't fit in the perfect little model you fit yourself in. They can be pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations, etc.. Saying you have to line up exactly with all the conservative issues or else you're unprincipled is nonsense. Your principles are no more or less valuable and consistent as a moderates, you just have a unified label for yours that you're satisfied-enough with.

Thank you for proving my point.  Those are policy positions, not principles

There are consistent principals behind every one of those policy positions. Obviously.

Quote
A principle is an overarching belief that informs all of your policy positions. 

No you extremist twat, it's not ONE principal which is overarching all your beliefs. Most humans have multiple principals which guide their beliefs.

Quote
Please elucidate the overarching principle that manifests as "pro-choice and pro-gun-control but against higher taxes and business regulations."  You don't even recognize how badly you played yourself.

That's not how principals work. You don't have just one and that's it, and if stuff doesn't fit in that one principal then it's an ignored issue or you try and force it into that principal even when it doesn't fit. Traditionally, the chief principles are accountability, justice, nonmaleficence, autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and veracity., though even that list has expanded over time.

Every time you type, you make it worse.  Nowhere did i say that people have only one principle.   What I stated was that a principle affects every policy you have.  So, if you believe in freedom,  every policy should maximize freedom,  along with any other principles that you have being maximized in that policy as well.  Only a squishy principle-less moderate could assert that people should have dozens of principles which only affect certain policies where  convenient.   I'm still waiting for the overarching principle that fits with your stealth liberal examples...

What does "overarching" mean in your "overarching principle that fits with your..." sentence if you're not trying to force all policies into one principal? And where is YOUR list of principals for each of those policy issues?

They were your list of policies.  You first.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MeganovaStella on December 09, 2022, 02:17:19 PM
What the fuck is going on here?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 09, 2022, 02:54:19 PM
What the fuck is going on here?

Some people trying to have a reasonable conversation being interrupted by a CCP apologist and a filthy Marxist.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 09, 2022, 04:54:43 PM
In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.

There is no way to vote a remedy for an illegitimately installed POTUS, though. There's no mechanism for a recall. Even impeachment doesn't work, it doesn't install a legitimately elected POTUS, just gets rid of (half of) an illegitimate cabinet.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 10, 2022, 12:07:13 AM
In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.

There is no way to vote a remedy for an illegitimately installed POTUS, though. There's no mechanism for a recall. Even impeachment doesn't work, it doesn't install a legitimately elected POTUS, just gets rid of (half of) an illegitimate cabinet.

How would such a mechanism work without it being weaponized as a political tool?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on December 10, 2022, 05:48:10 AM
In the U.S., there have been a long history of people being unfairly denied their vote. This has happened many times over U.S. history. Sometimes such denial has been met with armed rebellion, but more often and more successfully, it has been met by sustained activism to push others to elect those who pass laws to change the situation - like the 19th Amendment, the Civil Right Act, and so forth.

There is no way to vote a remedy for an illegitimately installed POTUS, though. There's no mechanism for a recall. Even impeachment doesn't work, it doesn't install a legitimately elected POTUS, just gets rid of (half of) an illegitimate cabinet.

How would such a mechanism work without it being weaponized as a political tool?

It couldn't, that's why the voting process must be unimpeachable, so that sour grapes don't metastasize in to a belief that the losing side was cheated.

I'd argue the U.S. hasn't had such confidence in a generation.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 10, 2022, 07:38:00 AM
  people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc.   Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat.  When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections.  Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states.  All sorts of shady shit.  I can understand there will be shady shit.  My issue is everyone gets to vote, this IMO is bullshit.  When my kids were 3 they did not get to decide what we had for meals, cars we bought, grocery lists, etc.  They were incapable of making those decisions.  We have A LOT of people in the country that are net negative tax payers.   They get to vote/decide on matters that affect me yet they are doing ZERO regarding effort in moving society along.  I think if your life in such a state you are a net negative tax payer, you should not be allowed to vote.  This is similar to stories I see where the local news will have a story about some severely mentally handicapped person (severe mental retardations) always so happy they get to go and vote.....this person is just barely above playing with their own feces and they get to vote?   What sort of meaning does it have if people who are useless get to decide matters?   
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 10, 2022, 08:36:43 AM
.....this person is just barely above playing with their own feces and they get to vote?   What sort of meaning does it have if people who are useless get to decide matters?

You could have just said "the Democratic base."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 10, 2022, 08:37:19 AM

How would such a mechanism work without it being weaponized as a political tool?

As opposed to how impeachment hasn't been weaponized?

I mean, I get it, in our current political climate everything gets weaponized, but the alternative is the situation where we have now, where even if we proved malfeasance, there isn't anything we could legally do about it.

I mean, fuck, that was literally the justification one court (I forget, Ohio, Pennsylvania, one of those) used for shutting down an investigation of election irregularities... That it was too late to matter.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 10, 2022, 01:16:22 PM
  people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc.   Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat.  When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections.  Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states.  All sorts of shady shit.  I can understand there will be shady shit.

In general, I agree here. Yes, some level of cheating does happen, and has always happened. Pundit takes his image from the "Gangs of New York" movie that dramatized how election cheating happened in 1862. The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

Yes, cheating happens. The question isn't whether it happens, but the degree to which it happens. Especially, how much effect are methods like ballot harvesting compared to quasi-legal methods like gerrymandering, 5-hour-long lines in some districts, etc. As was shown in 2000 in Florida, there are many ballots that are unclear or questionable, and those can be quasi-legally handled in different ways to shift the results.

The U.S. deliberately chose a system that is locally controlled. This makes it easy to cheat at the local level, but difficult to coordinate cheating at the national level. Also, cheating has little effect in non-battleground states since in voting for president, winning a state by 51% is the same as winning it by 99%.


My issue is everyone gets to vote, this IMO is bullshit.  When my kids were 3 they did not get to decide what we had for meals, cars we bought, grocery lists, etc.  They were incapable of making those decisions.  We have A LOT of people in the country that are net negative tax payers.   They get to vote/decide on matters that affect me yet they are doing ZERO regarding effort in moving society along.  I think if your life in such a state you are a net negative tax payer, you should not be allowed to vote.  This is similar to stories I see where the local news will have a story about some severely mentally handicapped person (severe mental retardations) always so happy they get to go and vote.....this person is just barely above playing with their own feces and they get to vote?   What sort of meaning does it have if people who are useless get to decide matters?

This is a fundamental of democracy. The elite have always felt that lesser people should be ruled rather than getting a vote in government. Certainly at the time of the 15th amendment, most blacks were not net positive money makers. Likewise, at the time of the 19th amendment, most women were not net positive money makers.

The problem is that elite with the vote have the power to make it more difficult for other groups to make money - just like how when the vote was restricted to landowners, the government made it difficult for undesirables to buy land. Taking away people's rights on money will motivate laws that make it harder for the fringe to earn money.

I think the government should be motivated to make *everyone* as informed and capable as possible.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 10, 2022, 01:56:23 PM
  people cheat on their wives, their taxes, admission exams, college tests, sports, etc.   Anything where there is a "reward" possible for cheating, some people will cheat.  When we are talking complete power....I find it odd folks have such a hard time with thinking people are cheating around elections.  Rest homes have 100 percent turn out, ballots get harvested like wheat in certain parts of certain states.  All sorts of shady shit.  I can understand there will be shady shit.

In general, I agree here. Yes, some level of cheating does happen, and has always happened. Pundit takes his image from the "Gangs of New York" movie that dramatized how election cheating happened in 1862. The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

For the same reason that people who never before had an especial beef with Trump suddenly were coming out of the woodwork to call him the Cheeto Mussolini, or Orange Hitler. Trump was an outsider, and the people who voted for him believed that his presidency was a ray of hope that The System wasn't impenetrable. That voting could actually make a difference. The 2020 election was effectivley a slap-down of that idea.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 10, 2022, 02:15:05 PM
The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.


I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".

I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.

What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.

Interesting, isn't it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 10, 2022, 02:56:40 PM
The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".

I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.

Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.

What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.

Interesting, isn't it.

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

But I don't think that's the case. The level of claims and action regarding cheating in the 2020 election is markedly different than in past elections. Especially in close elections, it's often been the case that the losing side protests and the opposing side decries such protests. Still, in past elections, the losing candidate has always conceded before Jan 6, for example.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 10, 2022, 03:35:53 PM

Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.


That was a different kind of cheating 😉
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 10, 2022, 04:10:37 PM

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

We spent four years hearing, almost every single day, that Trump was a Russian plant, that Russian hacking got him elected, that Trump was sucking Putin's cock, you name it. It was a daily drone, like the most obnoxious set of bagpipes on earth.

Four years.

No. Nothing Trump has done or said stands out as particularly different than what was already being said.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 10, 2022, 10:11:44 PM

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

We spent four years hearing, almost every single day, that Trump was a Russian plant, that Russian hacking got him elected, that Trump was sucking Putin's cock, you name it. It was a daily drone, like the most obnoxious set of bagpipes on earth.

Four years.

No. Nothing Trump has done or said stands out as particularly different than what was already being said.

It's like jhkim has never heard of Stacy Abrams, who has been claiming the election was stolen from her long before 2020.  But, of course, he has.  You will find that jhkim frequently can find some miniscule irrelevance that proves convincingly that when his side does it, it's totally different (while later declaring that your assertions of difference are negligible compared to the overall similarities).  It's a pretty regular pattern...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 10, 2022, 10:22:50 PM
The weird thing for me is people who never before complained about election procedure or cheating - suddenly in 2020 declare that the entire system is broken and even that the Constitution doesn't work because Trump wasn't elected.

I remember the Bush years. 8 years of constant attacks on Bush that he was an illegitimately elected president due either to the electoral college being "broken" or Florida election "cheating".

I remember the four years of Trump. Constant attacks on Trump for being illegitimately elected, again either because of the electoral college being "fundamentally broken and needing to be abolished", or accused electoral cheating, or accusations of Russian hacking.

Sure. And in the Clinton years, there were constant attacks on Clinton - including calls to impeach him - and claims of his cheating. And it goes back through Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. Some level of cheating is a constant, and some level of claims of cheating are constant.

What's "weird" is how, suddenly, the very notion of even DARING to question election integrity is decried as treasonous conspiracy theories.

Interesting, isn't it.

You're implying that the level of claims in the 2020 election are the same as those in past elections. And that what has changed is that standards have narrowed so that now the same level of claims that were present in past elections are not tolerated.

But I don't think that's the case. The level of claims and action regarding cheating in the 2020 election is markedly different than in past elections. Especially in close elections, it's often been the case that the losing side protests and the opposing side decries such protests. Still, in past elections, the losing candidate has always conceded before Jan 6, for example.

It's not required for a candidate to conceed. It's a political nicety, but then Trump wasn't elected to be a quiet, polite candidate.
Personally, I find these concession speeches jarring. After accusing their opponent of being a heinous monster, a candidate then does a heel-turn and gets all congratulatory. At least, it's a reminder to me that politicans are all greasy scumbags who are not to be trusted.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 11, 2022, 11:15:19 AM
It's not required for a candidate to conceed. It's a political nicety, but then Trump wasn't elected to be a quiet, polite candidate.
Personally, I find these concession speeches jarring. After accusing their opponent of being a heinous monster, a candidate then does a heel-turn and gets all congratulatory. At least, it's a reminder to me that politicans are all greasy scumbags who are not to be trusted.

Concession speeches make sense under the old model. The old model was, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, we all at least paid lip service to the idea we were all in this together, working towards a common goal. We might disagree on how to get there, but we all wanted a strong, healthy country with prosperous, happy people.

That hasn't been true for a while. Now everyone views the Other Guy as the enemy, not the opposition party. Under that model, you're right, the concession speech seems fake.

I mean, think of the common sentiments that used to be expressed in them. "My opponent ran a good race" - nope, today everyone is very quick to condemn the Other Guy's campaign. "The people have spoken" - again, nope. Now we say the people have been cheated. Or the wrong people spoke. "I know he'll do the job with honor and integrity" - hah!

No, they really don't make much sense. Now they should just be called surrender speeches.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 11, 2022, 12:33:06 PM
    Keep letting useless booger eaters decide the direction of society and you end up with a useless booger eater society.  Enjoy that.  Democracy is NOT and NEVER was the intent of the structure of the United States government and its operation.  Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.  Just as choices in immigration were (bring people who stand on their own and not legions of people on public assistance) for GOOD REASON.  40 more years and the USA is officially shit hole.  Manly republics give way to feminine democracy that inevitably become failed tyrannies. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 11, 2022, 12:41:28 PM
  "Democracy" also means jack shit if the government is allowed to import voters EN MASSE who will vote in a manner that is largely not the best for natives in a nation.  "Democracy" as tossed around by petty tyrants with no goal past "winning" is just to make sure the numbers work out in their favor and they run ruthless and never ending marketing, propaganda, and "activism" programs to see their will done.   I do hope I live long enough to see this blow up.  I can at least roast some marsh mellows on the ashes of a destroyed society.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 11, 2022, 01:12:13 PM
  Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.

Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 11, 2022, 02:26:22 PM
  Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.

Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.

Your example belies your assertion.  That redneck isn't moving.  His kids will grow up there.  He has an incentive to care about that community, and is more likely to vote for a candidate who pledges to keep the government out of his business.  Your doctor can end the lease at any point, bail on whatever mess he voted for in that community, and take his gay lover to Cazumel to live in retirement.  More importantly, the people you didn't mention in your examples, the welfare queen or bum, would also lose their ability to vote themselves more of our money, which more than makes up for the issues it might cause for hypothetical renters...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 11, 2022, 02:44:44 PM
  Landowner was a requirement FOR GOOD REASON.

Maybe in the minds of those who decided that, but it's fairly well meaningless in the here and now. I own land. All it means is that it was actually cheaper for me to buy land and a house outside the city than to rent an apartment in the city. Land was (and, compared to much of the world, still is) relatively cheap. It's certainly no sign a person is going to be a responsible voter, or a well informed one. The redneck (and I use the term as a redneck from a long line of rednecks) three houses down who lives in a rundown trailer with a pile of junked cars and old washing machines in his back yard who works at a gas station is not magically a better voter than a doctor renting a penthouse apartment, nor does he intrinsically have more to lose or more invested in the well being of the country.

  It sure isnt, but it is a damn good start. I would say you also gave me zero information that makes that same redneck a WORSE voter than the cosmopolitan doctor (who probably endorsed any propaganda Phizer fed him).  I dont care to make perfect the enemy of good, but allowing people to vote for a system that seems to exist simply to support them while contributing NOTHING to said system...is a sure recipe for disaster.   That doctor may well be able to afford a house/condo of his own in the city if housing prices were not driven through the roof by massive amounts of "affordable" housing that is heavily or completely subsidized by the tax payer.   Considering how many "refugees" we are now packing into "affordable" housing and driving costs ever higher for people who actually pay their own way.....not so certain how your example refutes anything and instead is introducing another symptom to the problems "mah democracy" has created.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 11, 2022, 03:55:04 PM
Your example belies your assertion.  That redneck isn't moving.  His kids will grow up there.  He has an incentive to care about that community, and is more likely to vote for a candidate who pledges to keep the government out of his business.  Your doctor can end the lease at any point, bail on whatever mess he voted for in that community, and take his gay lover to Cazumel to live in retirement. 

I hate to tell you, but people move all the time. In my adult life I've rented once and owned property twice, in two different states. Most of my friends have similar histories. My father lived in like a dozen places before I was born - he moved around the country in the military, then worked in the private sector and moved multiple times for that job, too.

You don't know that the redneck has kids, or will ever have kids. You don't know if he gives two shits about his community - spoiler, a lot of them don't.

Statistically he's more likely to vote republican, perhaps, but its but it's by no means a sure thing - a lot of rednecks either are themselves or were raised by blue collar union types, particularly around here - the legacy of coal miners and such - and they often vote Democrat.

And, for the record, there are gay rednecks, and plenty of straight doctors with big families. Stop trying to conflate your issues.

More importantly, the people you didn't mention in your examples, the welfare queen or bum, would also lose their ability to vote themselves more of our money, which more than makes up for the issues it might cause for hypothetical renters...

"Hypothetical renters"? They aren't hypothetical. There's a ton of them. Cities are full of renters who are absolutely not "welfare queens" or "bums", and while that may disenfranchise the group of people you want to disenfranchise, because fuck cities, that's not finding any virtue in land ownership verses renting. And on the flip side of cities, there are "welfare queens" and other "net negative" types in rural areas that still manage to own land through one means or another. And outside of, like... LA and San Francisco, I'm not convinced the population of homeless bums is significant enough to worry about any effect on elections.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 11, 2022, 04:12:52 PM
  It sure isnt, but it is a damn good start. I would say you also gave me zero information that makes that same redneck a WORSE voter than the cosmopolitan doctor (who probably endorsed any propaganda Phizer fed him).

I didn't say he was worse. That's actually kind of my point. He just... is. You don't know a person is a good or bad voter based on whether or not they own an entire 100 acre estate, a postage stamp with a trailer, or none at all. I understand the theory, but I don't think it's valid in the modern era, if it ever was.


I dont care to make perfect the enemy of good, but allowing people to vote for a system that seems to exist simply to support them while contributing NOTHING to said system...is a sure recipe for disaster.

... Owning land doesn't intrinsically mean you're really contributing to the system, and not owning land doesn't mean you aren't. People still pay taxes even if they aren't paying property taxes specifically. Hell, where I live my property taxes are practically an afterthought in my annual budget.

That doctor may well be able to afford a house/condo of his own in the city if housing prices were not driven through the roof by massive amounts of "affordable" housing that is heavily or completely subsidized by the tax payer.   Considering how many "refugees" we are now packing into "affordable" housing and driving costs ever higher for people who actually pay their own way.....not so certain how your example refutes anything and instead is introducing another symptom to the problems "mah democracy" has created.

That's one element driving land prices up, but considering most subsidized housing is high-density apartments, I would look at least as much to land-holding companies that buy up land that goes on sale, holding onto it and renting it instead, which not only drives the price of land up, but just plain removes land from 'circulation'. Just in the last couple years, I've seen several houses around me get bought up by those outfits and turned into rental places.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 11, 2022, 04:17:49 PM
  Oh massive mono corps buying up everything and renting it all is a huge problem as well, but the fact is if the population stops racing up, supply and demand even cause those assholes to tap the brakes on price increases.   As for renters "paying taxes" so what.  Real world shit loads of people in the country are net negative tax payers, probably 50 percent.  That is a bad, bad, bad forecast for the future.   Spending will not go down, and if tax payer pop is always going down.....the tax pigs just have to give more so people who are worthless can have something. 

    The owning of land is metaphor for skin in the game, and you seem to be taking that metaphor extremely literally.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 11, 2022, 04:32:42 PM
As for renters "paying taxes" so what.  Real world shit loads of people in the country are net negative tax payers, probably 50 percent.  That is a bad, bad, bad forecast for the future.   Spending will not go down, and if tax payer pop is always going down.....the tax pigs just have to give more so people who are worthless can have something. 

    The owning of land is metaphor for skin in the game, and you seem to be taking that metaphor extremely literally

As I said. Plenty of rural/low income people own land but are still probably getting more in benefits than they pay in taxes. But there are plenty of renters who pay more in taxes than they take out.

So just stop trying to bring the whole "land holders" argument up if you actually just want to make the argument about what your ratio of tax payments to benefits is.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 11, 2022, 06:31:09 PM
    The owning of land is metaphor for skin in the game, and you seem to be taking that metaphor extremely literally.

It's hard to base policy on metaphors. If the goal is to balance voting with "having skin in the game", then you have to figure out a way to actually determine what "having skin in the game" entails.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 04:46:58 AM
 Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 12, 2022, 05:12:08 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 07:48:47 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.

   I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids.  I am not fine with the same worthless people voting.  You act as if one ensures the other.  I do not.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 09:05:42 AM
Yeah, okay, I think it's time I bowed out of this line of the argument. I will freely admit I can't be objective enough, apparently. I grew up in an area where a huge chunk of the town was at least getting subsidized lunches for their kids, or some other government aid. I was more unusual in not getting them. Most of those people weren't "worthless" - they held down honest jobs, doing things that needed doing, contributing in their own part to the functioning of our community.

One of my best friends growing up was adopted by his aunt, him and his brother, after their drug-using slut of a mother wandered off to fuck-knows-where. She was already supporting her disabled (stroke) husband. They lived in poverty, to be sure. Food stamps, school lunches, etc. But his aunt was a nurse at the hospital. Worked long-ass hours, doing good, important work, the hours she wasn't working she was caring for a ruined man who couldn't do much more than watch TV and cry, and in the few moments she had in between she tried to make sure she at least kept a couple of innocent kids off the fucking streets. She was not "worthless". The drug using mother? Sure. The stroke victim husband? It might be cruel, but sure, maybe. Her? no. And yes, I am aware, anecdotes are not data, but her story isn't unique. I knew many of them.

You guys want to lament about reconciliation being a lost cause? Fine. But it aint all on one side of the equation, here. Christ.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 12, 2022, 09:37:03 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.

   I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting.  You act as if one ensures the other.  I do not.

It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 10:36:43 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.

   I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting.  You act as if one ensures the other.  I do not.

It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.

  I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed?   I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue.  I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better?   If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run.   I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight.  Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless.  I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on December 12, 2022, 11:03:28 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.

   I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting.  You act as if one ensures the other.  I do not.

It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.

  I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed?   I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue.  I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better?   If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run.   I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight.  Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless.  I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.

While I hate Commies, and agree that certain parts of American politics are FUBAR, your equating financial value with the worth of a human being is really fucking concerning.

Not to mention that while, yes, people of Welfare will vote for more Welfare; if you take away their vote, the people left with a vote will invariably vote to constantly reduce or do-away with welfare.

Hardcore Libertarianism is as delusional and ultimately destructive as aspects of Communism.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 11:11:19 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.

   I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting.  You act as if one ensures the other.  I do not.

It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.

  I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed?   I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue.  I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better?   If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run.   I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight.  Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless.  I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.

While I hate Commies, and agree that certain parts of American politics are FUBAR, your equating financial value with the worth of a human being is really fucking concerning.

Not to mention that while, yes, people of Welfare will vote for more Welfare; if you take away their vote, the people left with a vote will invariably vote to constantly reduce or do-away with welfare.

Hardcore Libertarianism is as delusional and ultimately destructive as aspects of Communism.

  Its not financial value.   It is pretty fucking easy to be a net tax payer in the USA.  If you have a job and do not take any government assistance you are certainly a net tax payer.    This is not hardcore libertarianism.  It is common sense.  Letting people decided the course of events is about as smart as letting your 3 year olds decide on retirement strategies for you.   Being broke is also extremely transitional if the person who is broke wants it to be.    What I propose is not even close to hard core, it is common sense.  We can keep doing it the way we have been doing it though, and keep getting more of what we have been getting.

   I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 11:37:18 AM
  Its not financial value.   It is pretty fucking easy to be a net tax payer in the USA.  If you have a job and do not take any government assistance you are certainly a net tax payer.    This is not hardcore libertarianism.  It is common sense.  Letting people decided the course of events is about as smart as letting your 3 year olds decide on retirement strategies for you.   Being broke is also extremely transitional if the person who is broke wants it to be.    What I propose is not even close to hard core, it is common sense.  We can keep doing it the way we have been doing it though, and keep getting more of what we have been getting.

   I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.

Okay. I know I said I'm not objective enough to be fairly involved in this argument, but it's not fucking binary. There is a wide gulf between 'homeless unemployed leach on society' and getting no government assistance whatsoever.

   I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.

One of those things is not like the others.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 11:40:14 AM
  Its not financial value.   It is pretty fucking easy to be a net tax payer in the USA.  If you have a job and do not take any government assistance you are certainly a net tax payer.    This is not hardcore libertarianism.  It is common sense.  Letting people decided the course of events is about as smart as letting your 3 year olds decide on retirement strategies for you.   Being broke is also extremely transitional if the person who is broke wants it to be.    What I propose is not even close to hard core, it is common sense.  We can keep doing it the way we have been doing it though, and keep getting more of what we have been getting.

   I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.

Okay. I know I said I'm not objective enough to be fairly involved in this argument, but it's not fucking binary. There is a wide gulf between 'homeless unemployed leach on society' and getting no government assistance whatsoever.

   I do say that if you have no job, make no progress to having a job, take assistance and never contribute you are in fact pretty worthless to society.

One of those things is not like the others.

  That is why I listed all three of them together.   I also do not disagree regarding government assistance.  I think during the time a person receives it, no voting.   If the situation is temporary voting returns.   People can fall on hard times, and aid to get back up is just fine.   Making that a lifestyle though is folly.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 12:39:23 PM
  That is why I listed all three of them together.   I also do not disagree regarding government assistance.  I think during the time a person receives it, no voting.   If the situation is temporary voting returns.   People can fall on hard times, and aid to get back up is just fine.   Making that a lifestyle though is folly.

Yeah, okay, you're either not actually familiar with the conditions a lot of the country lives in, or you're being disingenuous. I'm not sure which it is. You're basically coming across like the right-wing version of liberals deriding "flyover country rednecks". And talking about a lot of the same people. So, I suppose you've got a good talking point for reconciliation right there.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 12, 2022, 01:11:39 PM
Greetings!

The ancient Greeks and Romans foresaw--and experienced--all of this. That is why they opposed broad-based Democracy. It is precisely from such ancient wisdom and experience why our own Founding Fathers judged against forming a Democracy, and instead established a Republic. There's also the observation that "Masculine Republics give way to Feminine Democracies, which give rise to Tyranny".

Total Democracies like to shriek about "Freedom!"--but that is merely an insidious illusion, or, at best, temporary. It inevitably leads to blood, slaughter, tyranny, and Chaos.

Establishing land ownership was, and is, a decent symbol of a individual citizen's contributions and stake or investment in their local community, and to the larger society in general. Yes, this idea may apply in more varying degrees in our modern society with our modern industrial economy, but the principle is sound. Back in the day, the Founding Fathers lived in obviously a very different society. In their mind, however, their intention and scope embraced a citizen that was a land owner; a patriot; a Christian; a family man; a man of some education, with a strong work ethic and ambition. Typically their land also contributed some produce--plants and crops, animals, or in some way contributed to a prosperous business of some kind. And also, of course, a man armed and ready, as well as his entire household. A man and his family, working hard, prosperous, and contributing to the local community. Such a man would be more likely to actually be educated about issues of the day, and be sincere in their efforts and involvements, including being diligent and purposeful in voting.

Some landless day labourer, renting a room from Mrs. Anderson, well, that man is far less likely to be equipped to vote and be involved in politics in any worthwhile manner. That's why they didn't bother to provide such men with the right to vote. Voting isn't relevant to them, and they are either uneducated or otherwise ill-disposed, whether intellectually or emotionally, to comprehend and grasp deeper political issues, arguments, policies, and the like.

Voting was regarded as important; as special; as dignified and of supreme importance to the health and functioning of our Republic. Of course, it wasn't limited to *being born owning land*--no, a person that worked hard, educated themselves, and arrived at a place of owning land--now also gained the right to vote. They had demonstrated that they could achieve, and function, and contribute to society. Therefore, they now also earned the right to have their voice heard through voting, debate, and politics, the running of the Republic.

The system we have now where the ignorant masses froth and scream and demand more, more, more--always more money, payments, stipends, tax breaks, cutouts, allowances--whatever--gets more and more. It never ends. The politicians will continue to pander to the largest mob that can keep them in power, so nothing changes for the better. The system bloats with more and more rot, because the citizen leaders didn't have the courage to demand that the voting citizens check themselves and not be lazy, greedy, animals.

It then becomes a big, downward spiral, circling the toilet drain. At some point of decadence, corruption, and selfishness, the momentum becomes too fierce to resist or turn back, and the society nose dives into destruction.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 03:13:36 PM
  That is why I listed all three of them together.   I also do not disagree regarding government assistance.  I think during the time a person receives it, no voting.   If the situation is temporary voting returns.   People can fall on hard times, and aid to get back up is just fine.   Making that a lifestyle though is folly.

Yeah, okay, you're either not actually familiar with the conditions a lot of the country lives in, or you're being disingenuous. I'm not sure which it is. You're basically coming across like the right-wing version of liberals deriding "flyover country rednecks". And talking about a lot of the same people. So, I suppose you've got a good talking point for reconciliation right there.

    It's right wing to expect people to actually run their own lives and pay for their own food and to feed their kids?    Well that overton window keeps on moving.   I am not for removing assistance, I am for not allowing people who get it to have a vote.  Once they are back to actually running their own lives, welcome them to vote.     I am also for having a much higher minimum voting age of 30 and not allowing a person to vote after 65.    I am also for comprehensive full health care and downsizing the military by about 95 percent.   Right now a whole lot of bullshit gets a greenlight because lots of the people saying "ok" to really bad ideas fiscally are not actually paying the freight.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 05:21:01 PM
It's right wing to expect people to actually run their own lives and pay for their own food and to feed their kids?    Well that overton window keeps on moving. 

Oh, are we suddenly not talking about reconciliation between the right and the left? Or are you saying you're left-leaning?

I didn't say anything about your position - however much I disagree with it - I very clearly was referring to you.

Don't pull the "I'm only banning junk food because I'm so concerned for people's welfare" schtick out. As you go on to make very clear, your interest is in disenfranchising those people you consider "worthless" - along with a whole lot of other people, too, apparently - , but you keep lumping a whole lot of people in to your very extreme example of unemployed welfare queens.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 05:40:53 PM
It's right wing to expect people to actually run their own lives and pay for their own food and to feed their kids?    Well that overton window keeps on moving. 

Oh, are we suddenly not talking about reconciliation between the right and the left? Or are you saying you're left-leaning?

I didn't say anything about your position - however much I disagree with it - I very clearly was referring to you.

Don't pull the "I'm only banning junk food because I'm so concerned for people's welfare" schtick out. As you go on to make very clear, your interest is in disenfranchising those people you consider "worthless" - along with a whole lot of other people, too, apparently - , but you keep lumping a whole lot of people in to your very extreme example of unemployed welfare queens.

   Ah, you mean my position is harsh and lacking empathy on people who are broke?   I guess it is.   I do want to disenfranchise people who are worthless, it is not me deeming them so, it is math doing that.   There is no reconciliation though.  Like most I will stay here maybe till the clock winds down, but I am preparing my kids to have jobs that can be done from anywhere since pretty soon here will not be the best place for them.   I did not say I care about people's welfare.  I said I expect them to handle their lives themselves.   I do think that is better for them but my reasons are more along the line of not wanting people who can not run their own lives having a say in mine.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 05:53:45 PM
Yeah, okay, I think it's time I bowed out of this line of the argument. I will freely admit I can't be objective enough, apparently. I grew up in an area where a huge chunk of the town was at least getting subsidized lunches for their kids, or some other government aid. I was more unusual in not getting them. Most of those people weren't "worthless" - they held down honest jobs, doing things that needed doing, contributing in their own part to the functioning of our community.

One of my best friends growing up was adopted by his aunt, him and his brother, after their drug-using slut of a mother wandered off to fuck-knows-where. She was already supporting her disabled (stroke) husband. They lived in poverty, to be sure. Food stamps, school lunches, etc. But his aunt was a nurse at the hospital. Worked long-ass hours, doing good, important work, the hours she wasn't working she was caring for a ruined man who couldn't do much more than watch TV and cry, and in the few moments she had in between she tried to make sure she at least kept a couple of innocent kids off the fucking streets. She was not "worthless". The drug using mother? Sure. The stroke victim husband? It might be cruel, but sure, maybe. Her? no. And yes, I am aware, anecdotes are not data, but her story isn't unique. I knew many of them.

You guys want to lament about reconciliation being a lost cause? Fine. But it aint all on one side of the equation, here. Christ.

  What you describe here is not contrary to anything I have said.   I would say it points to our nation being total shit that the woman had to be crushed by life because her sister sucked and her husband had a massive medical issue.  That issue she had would have certainly been much better taken care of by the state if the state did not give SO MUCH money to funding useless people to reproduce and for endless wars involving spreading democracy with missiles.  You also know full well she was not who I am talking about and I am more than happy to discuss all sorts of folks who should have a say despite receiving assistance.    Much of the town getting free lunch?   Maybe, I do not know the numbers where it was and whether it was one of many towns hollowed out thanks to bankers and shitbirds in DC making more money by allowing for exploitation of international labor (aka letting the slaves in china and india make the stuff cheaper).   I have room for nuance, but I am starting from a position of assistance = no vote.   We can start making waivers from there or not make them.   I know lots of the people doing the voting are not the people doing the paying.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 12, 2022, 06:02:41 PM
  I have harsh answers to all this shit though, I would cut the military mightily, no foreign aid, etc.   There is no reconciling.  the only choices are bad ones and the only direction is down.  Enjoy the decline as best you can.   It would take harsh/drastic measures to stop the momentum built at this point.  There will be no harsh.  It will just be the slow motion collapse of the USA.  My kids can just live elsewhere when it is time to go.   I think I might just go down with the ship. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 12, 2022, 08:13:17 PM
What an interesting couple of pages...so a land owning redneck isn't more qualified than a non-land owning doctor to vote. Did I get that right?

Here's the thing: yes he the fuck is simply by virtue of being intrinsically tied to the community in a way the doctor is not. I don't care one bit if that dude is an uneducated rube, he has a personal stake in what happens to him and the people around him. Further, I'd trust someone like that FAR more than an overeducated doctor because at least people like that tend to be more self-reflective. If the past two years has taught you anything it should at least be that the most "educated experts" and their ilk are truly the dumbest motherfuckers to ever walk the earth, motivated purely by money and the accumulation of social clout. They are grifters and disingenuous fucktards from top to bottom. The dumbass redneck might not know much on paper, but he probably can at least survive and has a decent idea what to do when the apocalypse comes.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 09:15:23 PM
Here's the thing: yes he the fuck is simply by virtue of being intrinsically tied to the community in a way the doctor is not.

"In a way the doctor is not" is literally true, correct. They absolutely have different situations. But I feel you vastly over-sell how significant the difference is, particularly in the modern era.

I don't care one bit if that dude is an uneducated rube, he has a personal stake in what happens to him and the people around him. Further, I'd trust someone like that FAR more than an overeducated doctor because at least people like that tend to be more self-reflective.

Spare me. Most of my family on both side are rednecks or ex-rednecks. I neither underestimate them - I was never making an "uneducated rube" argument - nor do I ascribe some sort of inherent wisdom to them. They're just people, same as everyone else. You have smart ones and dumb ones, wise ones and foolish ones. I've certainly never seen any evidence that they are, on the whole, more self-reflecting than the average man.

If the past two years has taught you anything it should at least be that the most "educated experts" and their ilk are truly the dumbest motherfuckers to ever walk the earth, motivated purely by money and the accumulation of social clout. They are grifters and disingenuous fucktards from top to bottom.

And just like with rednecks, there are good doctors and bad ones. I was paying attention the last couple of years, as it happens. Not every doctor was lining up to worship at the altar of Fauxi. Plenty did, or at least tried to, speak out against the bullshit and the lockdowns and all the rest, but they were silenced and shut down at every turn.

I'm not saying "Doctors are ubermensch who should lead us". My point isn't even about doctors specifically at all. It was just making the point that we've moved beyond the era of non-property owners being laborers renting a room from Mrs. Appleby, or whatever the quaint example was that someone made was. Plenty of people can be a significant contributor to their community, in terms of finances, care, and even investment without owning property. Hell, you can run a successful business with actual employees without owning property. 

The dumbass redneck might not know much on paper, but he probably can at least survive and has a decent idea what to do when the apocalypse comes.

Again, don't mythologize rednecks.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 12, 2022, 09:41:17 PM
Again, don't mythologize rednecks.

I resemble that remark, dearest sir. The smartest people I know are both hillbillies from Appalachia, uneducated for the most part, one of whom could barely read as an adult. But put any sort of mechanical problem in from of him, he'd figure it out better than any engineer alive.

You gotta take my post as a bit of hyperbole...but just understand I've dealt with morons in higher academia for nine years total, so when I say they're the dumbest people alive, I mean that sincerely.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Bruwulf on December 12, 2022, 09:52:59 PM
I resemble that remark, dearest sir. The smartest people I know are both hillbillies from Appalachia, uneducated for the most part, one of whom could barely read as an adult. But put any sort of mechanical problem in from of him, he'd figure it out better than any engineer alive.

Sounds a bit like my uncle Lou. Between committing insurance fraud, cheating on his wife, and thinking wrestling a deer to the ground and slitting it's throat with his hunting knife was a smarter idea  than shooting it again, the man could basically build a house single handedly from the ground up.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2022, 01:45:22 AM
Net tax payer is pretty simple, not some "more benefits than paid in taxes".  If you pay a net in, you are a net tax payer.  If the government pays your rent, for food, money, for your kid's lunch....well you are a negative tax payer IMO if the government is covering any of your costs.  Pretty simple what skin means.   It was land at the founding because there was no massive network of government agencies to make sure useless people could be funded to live their lives and reproduce and vote as they did so.   I said at the founding, and said there was good reason at the time for that being a requirement to vote, just like the Greeks required a man to be 30 before he could marry or vote.   A little time on task, skin in the game and basic wisdom as to how life works make a better voter...regardless of positions he/she may take.   If everything is free for you, well you just might be enticed to vote to keep getting free things.

I tend to agree with the argument. But it's hard to get voters to let children starve in the street in order to not incentivize welfare abuse. And I don't think most people would consider that an acceptable policy.

   I am fine with feeding worthless people's kids. I am not fine with the same worthless people voting.  You act as if one ensures the other.  I do not.

It most certainly does. The trend in America specifically and The West in general has been - you don't get to govern people without them having some kind of input on the matter. That means that "worthless" people have access to the vote. And they are incentivized to vote in favor of increased welfare.

  I know that is the trend...have you taken a look at what direction that trend is headed?   I suggest a new trend is in order or collapse will ensue.  I guess we can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the titanic as it sinks....or maybe just avoid the crash is better?

I want to be optimistic and hopeful, but I also realize that humans are screeching primates. If anything, Covid has convinced me that you or I have no say in the matter. The ship will sink, slowly and inexorably. Politicians and ideologues will pontificate about how those Other People are responsible while making as much bank off the chaos as they can. The best any individual can do is realize that we're headed down the drain, fortify their little slice, and trust no one outside their circle of close friends and family.

Quote
If you have NO input into the governing...as in contribution to the system and only being a drain...its complete idiocy to expect people who can not run simple life tasks to have inputs on how lives should be run.   I expect people to vote in their own interests, and can live with those interests contrasting mine....but only if they are pulling their weight.  Entitling worthless (no quotes needed, because lots of people are at this point in the USA pretty worthless.  I do believe people can change, but true change is spurred by discomfort...not coddling) people to have a say is a big mistake and the long term consequences are all around us.

And the people railing against it are incompetent buffoons. Simply denying people on welfare the vote is 1. Going to go over like a lead balloon with the general voting public, and 2. Still going to leave a government apparatus desiring more people on welfare so they can "manage" all those resources.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 13, 2022, 06:07:02 AM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 13, 2022, 09:28:40 AM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

These terms are acceptable...

When more and more info is now coming out on how pedigreed-but-midwitted leftists and elitist political operatives engaged in with governments in *actual* conspiracies to silence dissenting voices in pretty much every plank in their agenda (sexualizing and emasculating children, normalizing social credit, forcing food control, etc., etc., etc.), it's time to break out the wood chippers.

It won't be like Call of Duty - it'll be family members with opposing politics disappearing or finding your neighbor in a ditch with his hands swollen to mickey mouse glove size due to them getting bound with electrical wire and holes drilled into kneecaps.  It'll be brutal. The difference is that there are a *lot* more of us than them - and a family farmer from the US Midwest has more in common with a Pakistani leather tanner or Brazilian housewife than anyone realizes. 

What we've been seeing are two different sets of socioeconomic/political activities - those implemented by the IC at the behest of corrupt government officials (e.g. Ukraine - they were killing Russians in Donbas for the decade leading up to the current fighting) and those that are organically originated with a little help from patriotic IC or government people (e.g. Brazil).

And that's the thing about this - there can be no reconciliation until the past 50+ years of corruption across all governments is exposed and those who engaged in it who are still around get the same treatment as Ceausescu or Mussolini.

You don't think Yoel Roth and Fauci and Dasczak and Pelosi (and others ad infinitum) aren't terrified about what else Musk is going to kick out there?  Funny how SBF is arrested on the eve of testifying to Congress - how soon until he suicides?  Why hasn't Maxwell's book of clients been released to the world? Why do "leaders" and "experts" jet off to Davos and hold secret talks every year?  This isn't *a* conspiracy - it's multiple overlapping conspiracies by multiple entities who are colluding and opposing each other and there can be no reconciliation until the whole damn thing is exposed and everyone involved is forced into early retirement - because that is the only way to deprogram the leftist base
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 13, 2022, 09:40:46 AM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 13, 2022, 10:00:28 AM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.

There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.

Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 13, 2022, 10:46:11 AM

There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.

Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.

"We need a revolution, anyone who disagrees is a mental slave"
Yes, the far left and right do sound very similar.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 13, 2022, 11:56:47 AM

There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.

Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.

"We need a revolution, anyone who disagrees is a mental slave"
Yes, the far left and right do sound very similar.

I am a centrist, actually. The vast majority of people seem agree that there are higher values than just achieving material comfort.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to continue on with the dishonestly smearing other people while taking the "I'm so above-it-all" approach?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 13, 2022, 12:32:37 PM

There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.

Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.

"We need a revolution, anyone who disagrees is a mental slave"
Yes, the far left and right do sound very similar.

I am a centrist, actually. The vast majority of people seem agree that there are higher values than just achieving material comfort.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to continue on with the dishonestly smearing other people while taking the "I'm so above-it-all" approach?

How about you actually continue the conversation in an honest way before talking about "mental slavery"? Notice what the argument was before you jumped in. There was talk about "burning down the house".
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 13, 2022, 12:41:10 PM
On top of it, people are talking about moving out, or their kids having to move. Move where? I have lived in three countries, probably more than most people here, and my wife even more. There is a MASSIVE disconnect here between what has actually been built and the perception of a grimdark situation. A lot of people think they have to rebuild society from the ground. Gee, I have heard that one a few times before, Pol Pot for instance. Much more serious problems arise when people throw out the baby with the bath water.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 13, 2022, 12:54:26 PM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.

The western world is 3 days without food or electricity away from anarchy.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 13, 2022, 01:00:23 PM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.

The western world is 3 days without food or electricity away from anarchy.
I have so many questions.
The western world specifically? Wouldn't this affect any area? Why the western world? Because you live there? And where does the time limit come from?
But OK let's say we agree, what should be done about it? Increase our own production I suppose? this I can agree with.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Willmark on December 13, 2022, 04:30:13 PM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.

The western world is 3 days without food or electricity away from anarchy.
I have so many questions.
The western world specifically? Wouldn't this affect any area? Why the western world? Because you live there? And where does the time limit come from?
But OK let's say we agree, what should be done about it? Increase our own production I suppose? this I can agree with.
Likely?

From this:
In 1906, Alfred Henry Lewis stated, “There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.”

ETA: also likely form the replenishment rates of cities. Most major cities (roughly) churn through their food every three days i wining to just in time delivery.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 13, 2022, 05:26:50 PM
How about you actually continue the conversation in an honest way before talking about "mental slavery"? Notice what the argument was before you jumped in. There was talk about "burning down the house".

Sure, I'll agree we don't want to "burn down the house" -- But what the house is, and what the house isn't, is important to define and understand. I'll agree that certain types of rhetoric are unproductive, and it's useful to understand what is useful rhetoric and what isn't useful rhetoric.

What the house is: Normal American/European families, living their lives
What the house isn't: Regime institutions, regime personnel

For a hyper-contemporary example, we can look at Elon Musk's Twitter takeover. According to some reports, Elon has cut between 50 to 75% of the Twitter staff, and fired numerous high-ranking employees. What has the impact of this been at a practical level? I'm not a Twitter user, but my impression from accounts I have read is that this has improved Twitter by reducing the number of artificial trends, artificial users, and accounts see more of the content that they wanted to see.

We can argue that Elon Musk, "destroyed" Twitter. In a certain sense that is correct. But the functional and underlying experience for most people was not destroyed, it was improved. That's pretty incredible when you consider the number of staff that were cut. Were 1/2 (or more) of employees at Twitter really dead weight? The answer seems to be Yes.


Lets take a look at another example:

IssueExtremist PositionCentrist Position
Should we permit dangerous gain-of-function research geared towards creating novel pathogens that might result in deadly pandemics like we saw in 2020?Yes, we should permit people who we know are irresponsible and immoral to conduct dangerous research.No, we do not permit people who we know are irresponsible and immoral to conduct dangerous research. People who do this must be stopped.
Worst-Case Consequences:Worldwide pandemics, mass death, medical tyrannyThe world goes on normally and everyone lives their lives without fear of genetically engineered superviruses ravaging the planet. The normal and unavoidable risk of death from illness remains.

Of course, the Extremist position is virtually indistinguishable from the current ruling Regime's position. The Centrist position shared by the majority of people might in some cases require decisive action, but generally isn't terribly disruptive to the average person's normal life. The ruling Regime is in almost all cases the ones who push the extremist position, and they do so for reasons that are directly beneficial to them but deeply destructive to normal life. (Ex. Coronavirus, Censorship, Climate Lockdowns, Wars, etc)

The engineering of crises in order to provoke a response is a pretty common theme here. Whereas a centrist position in contrast is deliberately not trying to create crises. However, to get to that centrist position might require substantial institutional & personnel changes. The positive news is that, as we can ascertain from the Twitter example, the number of truly irreplaceable figures in most institutions is quite small.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: oggsmash on December 13, 2022, 05:59:29 PM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.

  Buddy motherfuckers here are convincing people to mutilate their kids, that boys are girls and that it is fine to let a trannie stripper read to kids.  There is no tweak and adjust when the powers that be have decided that is the course this country takes.   My attitude is probably part of the problem, mainly the part of it where I am willing to watch the shit burn and look out for my own kids rather than get an activist group together, meet regularly and start making steps towards some vigorous political change.   But seeing as how I am for actual borders and boys staying out of girls locker rooms....how far do you think me and the other men and women having activist meetings will get before we get fed alerted?    As for being able to start over somewhere....well I am directly descended from the people who built what you enjoy here today.  What can be done once can be done again...with the right people I guess.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 13, 2022, 08:13:09 PM
  Oh its never getting passed by the general voting public and I would never entrust such a means of voting to our current politicians.   I am simply offering an idea, a thought experiment.  There would have to be a burning of the old rotted house to build a new one.  No attempts at a coat of paint on a ruined structure is going to work out.

To me THIS ATTITUDE is part of the problem. You see it in lefties all the time too. Thinking that burning down the system and building it up somehow will make it better. No you need to tweak and adjust. It’s also just bizarre to me that people can live relatively comfy and safe lives and still think they are living on the edge of total destruction. I have relatives who live normal lives in countries that are far worse off. Yes, people are angrier than they used to be ten years ago, but you have to steer away from the cliff, not head straight for it.

There are higher values than leading "comfy and safe lives." This attitude is pure mental-slavery.

Particularly when said "comfort" and "safety" are paper-thin.
Not to atheistic slave mentality types who have no hope beyond this life and no great love for the good of future generations. They think if they just kowtow to the elites they’ll be allowed to keep some of their sense of normalcy. They ignore things like the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, Khmer Rouge, etc. that always accompanies the rise of the Totalitarians and just hope that being accommodating will buy them more life than they’d have if they took a stand.

Funny thing… only the statists see the collapse of the state as a bad thing whereas archeological evidence suggests that Europeans lived longer and healthier lives after the collapse of the Roman Empire’s central authority than before. It wasn’t until the return of the Nation-State in the late Medieval period that living conditions again started to degrade.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Lynn on December 14, 2022, 01:40:43 AM
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

The hatred is really its most palpable online and there are many inside both parties, the media and many outside that see the conflict as a means to their own benefit. It is always going to be worse where extremists gather.

I think its possible to get back the 'missing middle' where decisions come about through compromise, and radical change isn't forced on others by a tiny margin, but that has to be a decision moving forward. I think its going to be a few years before that happens.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 14, 2022, 03:03:40 AM
As someone who is an immigrant to America, and a bit of an "outsider" politically speaking (I still can't vote), it's hard not to notice the simmering hatred the two political sides have for each other. This also makes political compromises less and less tenable, and leads to breakdown of cooperation. To me, views like "this can only lead to civil war, there's no way back now" aren't helping. Do you see any way of bridging the gap between the factions? I have a couple of thoughts off the top of my head, and I think some admissions have to be made on either side, but I'll see what you guys think first.

The hatred is really its most palpable online and there are many inside both parties, the media and many outside that see the conflict as a means to their own benefit. It is always going to be worse where extremists gather.

I think its possible to get back the 'missing middle' where decisions come about through compromise, and radical change isn't forced on others by a tiny margin, but that has to be a decision moving forward. I think its going to be a few years before that happens.
The 'missing middle' is presently 'on the right' (even if they don't identify as that) because the radical Left controls the lion's share of the media and voting apparatus and wishes to portray itself as middle-left. This is the problem with reconciliation... it can't be achieved by further compromise with the Left, its happening instead via moderate Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard aligning with the right against the psychotic fringe Left.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 14, 2022, 04:43:38 PM
I wonder if the word "reconciliation" is the best description for what is possible.

In U.S. history, opposed sides have always remained opposed. But we have gone through periods of higher and lower levels of conflict.

Obviously, the Civil War was the highest point of conflict. After the war, there was punishing period of Reconstruction and radicalism, but soon after that, more moderates won out. Freed slaves kept some rights - but they were not given twenty acres and a mule, and most of their civil rights were stripped away with Jim Crow laws. Slave plantations were replaced with more moderate prison plantations or apprenticeship plantations.

The 1960s was also a high point of conflict - with acts of terrorism, lynchings, assassinations, and other extremism. This de-escalated in the later 1970s and 1980s, though. However, I wouldn't say that conservatives reconciled with communists - or that liberals reconciled with the KKK. Rather, the moderates of both sides became more dominant.

I suspect that the current period of extreme partisanship will have a similar de-escalation starting a few years from now.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Lynn on December 14, 2022, 08:19:43 PM
The 'missing middle' is presently 'on the right' (even if they don't identify as that) because the radical Left controls the lion's share of the media and voting apparatus and wishes to portray itself as middle-left. This is the problem with reconciliation... it can't be achieved by further compromise with the Left, its happening instead via moderate Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard aligning with the right against the psychotic fringe Left.

It is hard to imagine how bad things need to get to wake them up or, how badly elements need to turn on each other.

In the Portland area, the Portland Mayor is at loggerheads with Multnomah County (arguably worse than Portland City Council) and, I suspect, will run up against the new governor (who as speaker of the house in the Oregon legislature, passed some of the most damaging laws that had previously and adversely affected Portland). It is like the slogan for Alien vs Predator: "No matter who wins, you lose." Funnily enough, the public found out that one reason why homelessness is so bad in Portland is that before last winter, Multnomah County distributed thousands of tarps and many hundreds of tents so that the homeless could occupy sidewalks.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 14, 2022, 09:06:41 PM
Greetings!

"Reconciliation" with fucking Libtard, woke Communists isn't even necessary, let alone desirable. Let the Libtards choke in their filthy, crime-ridden, urban sewers. Let their standard of living and their tranquility be steadily beaten down into the gutter by living amongst hordes of diseased, insane homeless troglodytes. Let them wallow like huge herds of unarmed, helpless sheep in urban hellscapes where the criminals are always armed--and the Libtards can live in fear of being constantly robbed, harassed, raped or murdered.

It is a pathetic shithole that they themselves have created, for years. Let them cry to their Democrat officials endlessly, while nothing improves. The Democrats are good at letting more scum criminals out of prisons, and releasing them into the population to rape and brutalize. Pretty standard operating procedures for Libtards now. Oh well. Let them eat their own cake. Deep down, they like it! They have supported all of these terrible Democrat policies that have created the environments they currently live in. They voted for it all--one policy, one Democrat politician, at a time. Again and again and again. FOR YEARS.

Meanwhile, in Red States, it is refreshing not living or working or being around a bunch of Libtard freaks. It's *outstanding* being armed to the teeth, and being FREE. It is great being amongst so many people that are right-thinking Americans and don't America, our heritage, and history. It's great not being around a bunch of hate-filled shrieking Libtard clowns that somehow always seek to corrupt, pollute, and destroy everything great in America. It is a HUGE improvement in standard of living and peace of mind living amongst so many right-thinking people that actually love America, and actually love having manners and courtesy, and cherish maintaining a normal, happy, peaceful life for everyone.

So, there's no "Reconciliation" necessary--or even wanted.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 14, 2022, 09:24:23 PM
I wonder if the word "reconciliation" is the best description for what is possible.

In U.S. history, opposed sides have always remained opposed. But we have gone through periods of higher and lower levels of conflict.

Obviously, the Civil War was the highest point of conflict. After the war, there was punishing period of Reconstruction and radicalism, but soon after that, more moderates won out. Freed slaves kept some rights - but they were not given twenty acres and a mule, and most of their civil rights were stripped away with Jim Crow laws. Slave plantations were replaced with more moderate prison plantations or apprenticeship plantations.

The 1960s was also a high point of conflict - with acts of terrorism, lynchings, assassinations, and other extremism. This de-escalated in the later 1970s and 1980s, though. However, I wouldn't say that conservatives reconciled with communists - or that liberals reconciled with the KKK. Rather, the moderates of both sides became more dominant.

I suspect that the current period of extreme partisanship will have a similar de-escalation starting a few years from now.

Yup, that sounds about right.

I mean, if you can't handle people like, say Bill Maher or Ben Shapiro, who are occasionally able to point out some of the shenanigans of their respective sides (and who have, by the way, been able to have pretty good conversations) then you're being ridiculous at best or dangerous at worst.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 15, 2022, 10:39:55 AM
I wonder if the word "reconciliation" is the best description for what is possible.

In U.S. history, opposed sides have always remained opposed. But we have gone through periods of higher and lower levels of conflict.

Obviously, the Civil War was the highest point of conflict. After the war, there was punishing period of Reconstruction and radicalism, but soon after that, more moderates won out. Freed slaves kept some rights - but they were not given twenty acres and a mule, and most of their civil rights were stripped away with Jim Crow laws. Slave plantations were replaced with more moderate prison plantations or apprenticeship plantations.

The 1960s was also a high point of conflict - with acts of terrorism, lynchings, assassinations, and other extremism. This de-escalated in the later 1970s and 1980s, though. However, I wouldn't say that conservatives reconciled with communists - or that liberals reconciled with the KKK. Rather, the moderates of both sides became more dominant.

I suspect that the current period of extreme partisanship will have a similar de-escalation starting a few years from now.

Yup, that sounds about right.

I mean, if you can't handle people like, say Bill Maher or Ben Shapiro, who are occasionally able to point out some of the shenanigans of their respective sides (and who have, by the way, been able to have pretty good conversations) then you're being ridiculous at best or dangerous at worst.

The secret to those times of relative peace, and the times of conflict, was about toleration or lack thereof.

The USA was started by a lot of people who had very different ideas on how to live their lives and manage their communities. They agreed to get together to fight the British even if they disagreed about a lot of other things. Then they agreed to form a very loose confederation of states. When that was not working very well they formed a somewhat more centralized Federal Republic under the Constitution that dramatically limited the power of the central government while leaving most of the contentious issues to be resolved at the state level. This worked fairly well until a number of issues rose up and challenged the prior tolerance, slavery being the most emotionally powerful issue. Live and let live was simply no longer an option.

We are at another period of high conflict. Instead of there being a small number of highly emotional issues it seems to me to be a more broad question of how the USA should be governed. As the Constitutional limitations of the central government has been eroded we have seen a growing competition for control of that central government. There is either going to be a fight of some sort with one side winning and the other side losing (and how that plays out is anyone's guess), a restoration of the federal system where these contentious issues are dealt with at the state level and the central government and the other states don't get involved, or a total collapse of the system that may bring in some sort of secession/division that may or may not be peaceful.

I hope for the restoration of federalism, but I am not optimistic. There is just too much power, money, and prestige in Washington DC for anyone to let that go without a fight.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 15, 2022, 01:38:49 PM
I think we're seeing how reconciliation is going to happen.

Trumpers are just losing support, and the right is shifting to more moderate politicians.  The "They stole the election" people who ran this last time, for the most part, lost. People who want Trump to run again have been reduced to a much smaller minority of voters as he gets in more trouble over time.

Same is happening on the left. The progressive wing, for the most part, lost. Cancel culture is losing steam, and those who believe in it are fleeing to smaller and smaller enclaves on online communities.

So the reconciliation will be to adjust back to how things were before the progressives and Trumpers disrupted it - a move back to moderate wings of each party, and independents.

Which probably means something like DeSantis vs Biden for next Presidential election (my money would be on DeSantis if the recession kicks in fully).

And the progressives and Trumpers will whine bitch moan and complain about it and beat their chests and claim a civil war is coming any day now, and then ultimately it will just be more noise.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: BoxCrayonTales on December 15, 2022, 02:10:01 PM
Just in time for AI to take over the production of media, for babies to be grown in ectolife factories, everyone who isn't rich to live in pods and eat bugs, etc Western society is turning into a dystopian scifi movie
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 15, 2022, 03:13:42 PM
We are at another period of high conflict. Instead of there being a small number of highly emotional issues it seems to me to be a more broad question of how the USA should be governed. As the Constitutional limitations of the central government has been eroded we have seen a growing competition for control of that central government. There is either going to be a fight of some sort with one side winning and the other side losing (and how that plays out is anyone's guess), a restoration of the federal system where these contentious issues are dealt with at the state level and the central government and the other states don't get involved, or a total collapse of the system that may bring in some sort of secession/division that may or may not be peaceful.

I don't think most people on either side are motivated by federalism. Historically, sides tend to push for state's rights when they feel they are losing ground in the national government. Likewise, most support from free speech comes only when a side feels they are losing ground in the media. There are true believers in both, but broader support and emotional connection only comes when someone feels their personal issues are threatened.

U.S. central government has been gaining ground slowly but steadily for over a century by the action of both parties. Democrats have been involved especially under FDR. However, Republicans have also pushed through a lot of federal expansion - like federal decency laws under several presidents; federal anti-communist laws under Eisenhower; the creation of the DEA and national drug classification; anti-terrorism via the Patriot Act; education via No Child Left Behind, etc. Even environmental regulation was nationalized under Nixon with the creation of the EPA.

As a recent example, in the 1990s, LGBT advocates were happy to push through state-by-state recognition of same-sex marriage - and Republicans were happy to push back with the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 15, 2022, 03:33:52 PM
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 15, 2022, 03:36:15 PM
I think we're seeing how reconciliation is going to happen.

Trumpers are just losing support, and the right is shifting to more moderate politicians.  The "They stole the election" people who ran this last time, for the most part, lost. People who want Trump to run again have been reduced to a much smaller minority of voters as he gets in more trouble over time.

Same is happening on the left. The progressive wing, for the most part, lost. Cancel culture is losing steam, and those who believe in it are fleeing to smaller and smaller enclaves on online communities.

So the reconciliation will be to adjust back to how things were before the progressives and Trumpers disrupted it - a move back to moderate wings of each party, and independents.

Which probably means something like DeSantis vs Biden for next Presidential election (my money would be on DeSantis if the recession kicks in fully).

And the progressives and Trumpers will whine bitch moan and complain about it and beat their chests and claim a civil war is coming any day now, and then ultimately it will just be more noise.

Attempted gaslighting, twenty yard penalty, 4th down.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on December 15, 2022, 04:20:46 PM
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.

Exhibit A: a dumbass who thinks polling reflects public opinion...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 15, 2022, 05:41:29 PM
Greetings!

Compromising with Marxist scum *for years* is how we have gotten to where we are at. I think it is insane that there are people still living in a delusion where compromise is somehow worthwhile.

These same sad, but all-too-often smug and self-righteous people wouldn't *dream* of compromising with Muslim terrorists, pedophiles, or Nazis.

But somehow, fucking Communists get a pass. They get legitimized, respected, and treated with some kind of intellectual and political legitimacy.

These people are brainwashed monsters. Watch Yuri Besmenov. LEARN. Open your mind to real truth, the real danger, the real threat. I know. It isn't likely. Yuri himself explains that once these people have been brainwashed, they have become useful idiots, incapable of recognizing truth. You can present evidence, facts, reason to them--over and over again--and they will deny it all, and continue to embrace their Communist brainwashing.

All that Libtard woke Koolaid has permanent effects.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 15, 2022, 07:26:02 PM
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.

Of course how do most people define 'compromise'? My guess is "the other side concedes they are wrong and I am right and I get everything I want."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 15, 2022, 10:14:45 PM
Latest poll: Three-quarters of Americans say they want members of Congress to compromise across the aisle, the highest in at least a decade.

Of course how do most people define 'compromise'? My guess is "the other side concedes they are wrong and I am right and I get everything I want."

(https://i.giphy.com/media/fs0idQwq7jQAZKfqfm/giphy.webp)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on December 16, 2022, 04:53:05 AM
Compromising with Marxist scum *for years* is how we have gotten to where we are at. I think it is insane that there are people still living in a delusion where compromise is somehow worthwhile.

These same sad, but all-too-often smug and self-righteous people wouldn't *dream* of compromising with Muslim terrorists, pedophiles, or Nazis.

Idiots compromising with Marxists who harbour Muslim terrorists, leftist terrorists (Antifa etc) and paedophiles. Has no one noticed that so many of the most vocal LGBTQAI++ "activists" turn out to be paedo-groomers? It's always about access to women's spaces and children with these perverts.

Sam Brinton, the "non-binary" kleptomaniac who was supposed to be dealing with energy policy was reportedly a major influencer on schools policy. Which part of his brief on nuclear energy covered education, exactly? But when the President is a kiddie fiddler, it's hardly a surprise that like-minded people are in his administration.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2022, 08:22:17 AM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 16, 2022, 08:46:47 AM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 16, 2022, 10:36:11 AM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?

Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems  completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.

Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 16, 2022, 10:41:05 AM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

I agree with how difficult and pointless 'reconciliation' can be at times. One of the common results of marriage counseling is the realization that the couple are incompatible, and need to separate.

I don't think reconciliation should a societal goal. Toleration and patience should be the goal. Live and let live. That was the spirit on which the USA was founded and we need to return to that in order to survive as a nation.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 16, 2022, 11:01:42 AM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

I agree with how difficult and pointless 'reconciliation' can be at times. One of the common results of marriage counseling is the realization that the couple are incompatible, and need to separate.

I don't think reconciliation should a societal goal. Toleration and patience should be the goal. Live and let live. That was the spirit on which the USA was founded and we need to return to that in order to survive as a nation.

Sure, “reconciliation” might not be the most accurate way of putting it for society as a whole, although it might be necessary on a personal level in many cases. Families split apart for instance. Some SJWs are just stupid teenagers doing stupid teenager stuff.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 16, 2022, 11:12:14 AM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all). Some SJWs are just stupid teenagers doing stupid teenager stuff.

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

I agree with how difficult and pointless 'reconciliation' can be at times. One of the common results of marriage counseling is the realization that the couple are incompatible, and need to separate.

I don't think reconciliation should a societal goal. Toleration and patience should be the goal. Live and let live. That was the spirit on which the USA was founded and we need to return to that in order to survive as a nation.

Sure, “reconciliation” might not be the most accurate way of putting it for society as a whole, although it might be necessary on a personal level in many cases. Families split apart for instance.

I am trying to be diplomatic, but I agree that reconciliation may not be the 'most accurate way of putting it' but it is counter-productive IMHO. We don't have to live together happily. We don't have to agree with each other about everything. We don't have to give a shit about each other. We don't have to like each other! Maybe, we need to get back to living our lives as we see fit, and leaving other people alone so that they can do the same? And maybe that will also require occasionally moving to places that are more compatible with our ideas? We are not trees.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 16, 2022, 12:12:20 PM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?

Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems  completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.

Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
What do you think a divorce is if not a microscale societal collapse (of a family)?

Like I said, you’re the fucking self-righteous church lady who’s butthurt the battered wife is making a scene because she’s no longer interested in being choked out by her abusive husband.

Fuck your self-righteous foreign ass. If you think people should put up with being abused just so you can pretend the community isn’t a hellscape, then go back to your own abusive spouse/government you fled to come here.

I’ll reconcile with Tulsi. She’s admitted the group she was part of was engaged in actual harm against the people of this country and left them behind.

But lest you think this simply a party thing; I also want the “Three Micks” (the absusers at the head of the Republican Party) being run out on rails as the abusive traitors they are.

This isn’t left/right… it’s the crony establishment against the people they want to be their serfs. The intended serfs are mostly reconciled already… it’s the self-appointed elites who neither grant nor deserve mercy.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 16, 2022, 12:39:38 PM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?

Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems  completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.

Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
If your society is so sick that it demands people be defenseless in the face of violence and criminal action, then it deserves to die.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 16, 2022, 01:43:25 PM
Yeah, we've been 'compromising' on gun control for decades and it hasn't really worked out well.

Sorry, no compromise. Stop fucking with us.
You don’t reconcile with a spouse that’s hitting you. The abusive party has to show signs of genuine change and remorse before such a process could even possibly begin (if it’s possible at all).

The OP wants to know when the spouse who’s been punched in the face for decades is going to reconcile with the one trying to choke the very life out them and the abused spouse only wants to get their abuser’s hands off their throat. How uncivilized that we won’t let them choke us out as the abuser wants to.

The OP is that self-righteous church lady who berates battered wives for leaving their husbands because of the scandal it provokes. Those people are second only to the abusers themselves in terms of the lowest forms of life.

So your “solution” is…..societal collapse, like you alluded to once here?

Or that moderates like Tulsi Gabbard realign themselves politically, like you also said, and seems  completely reasonable to me? I like her btw. This is of course not going to last forever though, maybe Tulsi will stay but others, hopefully moderates, will fill her gap on the left. Politics tend to go that way and that’s fine.

Maybe stop posting when you’re having one of your bipolar episodes?
If your society is so sick that it demands people be defenseless in the face of violence and criminal action, then it deserves to die.
Indeed, the fundamental mistake being made by Trond and his ilk is that the modern Left is somehow a reasonably slightly left of centrist ideology and not a fringe extremist pro-terror organization against the vast middle and right they, through their control of the media have lumped into a single opposing faction because they're sitting the political right of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and the other mass murdering psychos of history.

What needs to happen is for the fringe extremist faction to be utterly destroyed so the vast middle can finally form two genuine parties of the old style... where you mostly agreed on the destination, just disagreed over the best methods to achieve them.

You can destroy all the hundred or so genuine rightwing extremists while you're at it too... the micro-faction supported entirely off the rantings of the fringe left in need of Boogey Men to campaign against (seriously, there are more genuine flat-Earthers than actual white supremacists in the United States). Every mass shooting event the media gets its hopes up only for it to end up being some raging leftist or a lunatic off his pills that the FBI had been warned about for years but did nothing about.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on December 16, 2022, 04:08:57 PM
A "center" defined by an extremist regime through regime-media propaganda is obviously inherently invalid. These extremists manufacture a crisis, propose a solution, and move people toward their desired outcome in whole or in part. As long as your conversation is wholly defined by the parameters that these extremists have set, you can't escape a continual escalation.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on December 16, 2022, 11:16:52 PM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 17, 2022, 12:02:25 PM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 17, 2022, 01:43:28 PM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 17, 2022, 01:53:05 PM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

This never happens because everyone who isn't a leftist was raised with manners and politeness which gets in the way of their understanding of how leftists think.

The only way to get leftists to start compromising is to start *not* compromising and to hold leftists 100% accountable for their bad behavior. 

That it took an immigrant to buy a crime scene and start holding leftists accountable by suspending their Twitter accounts for doxing (and trying to get cute by claiming they only posted links) is proof that western society is way too soft.  There should be *universal* outrage that Twitter was censoring speech at the request of the FBI.  Similarly for their refusal to stop antifa while simultaneously enabling J6 and Whitmer when those things never could have happened without the FBI actually instigating them.  Likewise when cops arrest parents for daring to question sexualizing of children.

I'm not particularly religious (pretty much not at all) yet I can easily see that those of faith could see the current situation as the end of days.

Our *entire* western society is irretrievably compromised, regardless of which nation you live in.  We need a 100% societal reset that includes the elimination of globalists, leftists, and marxists - whether I'm government, industry, or elsewhere.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 17, 2022, 03:48:16 PM
Indeed, the fundamental mistake being made by Trond and his ilk is that the modern Left is somehow a reasonably slightly left of centrist ideology and not a fringe extremist pro-terror organization against the vast middle and right they, through their control of the media have lumped into a single opposing faction because they're sitting the political right of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and the other mass murdering psychos of history.

What needs to happen is for the fringe extremist faction to be utterly destroyed so the vast middle can finally form two genuine parties of the old style... where you mostly agreed on the destination, just disagreed over the best methods to achieve them.

I don't agree there was a generic "old style" where the destination was agreed on. There have been less contentious periods in American history than now, when people were closer to agreement. However, there have also been more contentious periods, like the Civil War period or the 1960s.

I don't think that in the 1960s the segregationists and the anti-segregationists agreed on the destination. They were more fundamentally opposed. Likewise, the unions and socialists were fundamentally opposed to the radical anti-communists like McCarthy.

After the 1960s, the more radical leftists as exemplified by the Black Panther party and the Weather Underground lost influence. On the other hand, the segregationists also lost influence - and more radical anti-communist figures like McCarthy and Nixon lost influence. I'm not sure one can say they were "utterly destroyed". I'm not sure what you mean by those.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 18, 2022, 03:56:22 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 18, 2022, 09:03:26 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 19, 2022, 02:15:12 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.

Yes Jeff, it is. My schtick is telling hard truths. I am in fact pulling it again. You caught me. I am once again honestly saying you're nuts and that the extremes of each party are gradually losing power while the moderates of each party are stating to compromise with each other. And that you are a bit nuts, but I love you and your nutty perspective anyway (though mostly because you're a true blue game).

I am not even sure what part of that bothers you? Is it that I am calling you nuts, or that I love you despite you being nuts? What's the part of that triggering you here?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 19, 2022, 03:30:43 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.

Yes Jeff, it is. My schtick is telling hard truths.

Your schtick is arguing with people on the internet, just like everyone else here.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 19, 2022, 04:57:02 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
My schtick is telling hard truths.

Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 19, 2022, 05:16:07 AM
-To the right wing first, you have to realize that Trump is a divisive figure, quite possibly too divisive.

We are well of this, speaking as someone who leans right and couldn't stand Trump at first. But he was literally the only person that stood up against the Left wing mob that has taken over America while the Republican party cowers in the corner begging Left wing media to not call them bigots and racists and homophobes. I became more amenable to Trump after his first term. The shenanigans that went on to make sure he wasn't re-elected has made me deeply suspicious of our institutions, to the point of resentment.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Brad on December 19, 2022, 06:02:42 AM
We are well of this, speaking as someone who leans right and couldn't stand Trump at first. But he was literally the only person that stood up against the Left wing mob that has taken over America while the Republican party cowers in the corner begging Left wing media to not call them bigots and racists and homophobes. I became more amenable to Trump after his first term. The shenanigans that went on to make sure he wasn't re-elected has made me deeply suspicious of our institutions, to the point of resentment.

No, sorry, you're not a disenfranchised voter. Only leftists who support corrupt Democrats get to say that, especially minorities too stupid to obtain any sort of identification to combat obvious voter fraud.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on December 19, 2022, 08:32:23 AM

I don't agree there was a generic "old style" where the destination was agreed on. There have been less contentious periods in American history than now, when people were closer to agreement. However, there have also been more contentious periods, like the Civil War period or the 1960s.

I don't think that in the 1960s the segregationists and the anti-segregationists agreed on the destination. They were more fundamentally opposed. Likewise, the unions and socialists were fundamentally opposed to the radical anti-communists like McCarthy.

After the 1960s, the more radical leftists as exemplified by the Black Panther party and the Weather Underground lost influence. On the other hand, the segregationists also lost influence - and more radical anti-communist figures like McCarthy and Nixon lost influence. I'm not sure one can say they were "utterly destroyed". I'm not sure what you mean by those.

You act like the divisions of the 1860s and the 1960s were somehow healed by everybody getting together peacefully and hammering out their differences in a give-take situation. 

The 1860s ended in the military destruction and occupation of the South by the North.  The situation got fixed by battlefield victories.  The Reconstruction period ended because Northeners got tired of trying to enforce it, especially since their real goals of (a) keeping the cotton fields in the Union (cotton was to 19th Century economies what oil is to economies today),  (b) keeping white Southerners under their thumb so they could exploit other Southern resources and draw from the Southern male population to feed their armies, and (c) freeing the slaves, then passing laws to keep them from migrating North (which worked until the U.S. entered WW I).  The only thing the North gave away to gain this was the lives of its soldiers, and that was hardly due to peaceful negotiation.

The 1960s divisions ended, again, because the federal government got its way.  The FBI broke up the Klan as a serious force, and radical Leftist groups, while the FBI did arrest some of them, basically faded away because their goals were met: an end to the draft, preferential hiring for minorities, an increase in the welfare state, their ideological allies gaining control of the media and educational institutions, etc.  Back of the federal government winning all this was the threat of force, unnecessary to use this time because the South had zero chance of getting its way (the nullification of Federal voting laws).  Of course, today we have liberal states and cities nullifying Federal immigration laws and getting away with it and the Feds don't even push back, even when Republicans are in office.  Trump tried, and you see what happened to him.

And that's how the current divisions are going to be fixed:  the differing parties will go their own ways peacefully, or there will be a forced solution by the stronger side.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 19, 2022, 10:22:19 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.

Yes Jeff, it is. My schtick is telling hard truths.

Your schtick is arguing with people on the internet, just like everyone else here.

Also true!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 19, 2022, 10:23:19 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
My schtick is telling hard truths.

Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.

You're not convincible if it comes from me.  I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.

I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 19, 2022, 05:39:29 PM
The 1960s divisions ended, again, because the federal government got its way.

News alert. The divisions of the 1960's never went away. That generation is now in power and is making America even more divisive. Like all communists nothing is ever enough until everything conforms and is subservient to The Party. And America is becoming a one party state. The Left controls the institutions, education, the media, and the government. This is why Trump freaked them out so much, it was the first time in decades that a major power didn't cow tow to them on everything. Kind of like what Elon is doing right now. But both those guys keep giving in to the Left's demands.

One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 19, 2022, 05:54:19 PM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
My schtick is telling hard truths.

Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.

You're not convincible if it comes from me.  I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.



Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.


I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.

Nothing.
 Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: I on December 19, 2022, 10:36:36 PM
The 1960s divisions ended, again, because the federal government got its way.

News alert. The divisions of the 1960's never went away. That generation is now in power and is making America even more divisive. Like all communists nothing is ever enough until everything conforms and is subservient to The Party. And America is becoming a one party state. The Left controls the institutions, education, the media, and the government. This is why Trump freaked them out so much, it was the first time in decades that a major power didn't cow tow to them on everything. Kind of like what Elon is doing right now. But both those guys keep giving in to the Left's demands.

One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.

You are correct that the divisions of the 1960s never went away, and really in everything else you said.  I misspoke.  I should have said that the more radical elements, like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground lost influence because they basically got their way.  The Weather Underground also murdered some people and attempted terrorist bombings, IIRC, which was a step too far for even the elements in the government and media that were sympathetic to them.  My main point to jhkim was that nothing got solved by liberals and conservatives agreeing on anything -- the Left basically just got its way, and the Right backed down.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 20, 2022, 01:16:52 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
My schtick is telling hard truths.

Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.

You're not convincible if it comes from me.  I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.



Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.


I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.

Nothing.
 Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.

But if I say Traveler is a great game it might put you in the awkward position of instinctively feeling like you must disagree with me. And like I said I love you man. I don't want to do that to you.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 20, 2022, 04:00:12 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
My schtick is telling hard truths.

Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.

You're not convincible if it comes from me.  I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.



Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.


I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.

Nothing.
 Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.

But if I say Traveler is a great game it might put you in the awkward position of instinctively feeling like you must disagree with me. And like I said I love you man. I don't want to do that to you.

*snerk*
You'd have to get the correct spelling first since as is, you are talking about an insurance company.  Which just goes to show that you know fuck all about what you are talking, again.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 20, 2022, 04:43:10 AM
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.

Bwahahahahaa. I nearly split a gut when I read that. There are not centrists in the Democrat party.

The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

If by centrist you mean Republicans who roll over and cower whenever the Liberal media calls them out as bigots, homophobes, nazis whenever they don't go along with the Democrat party, then yeah I guess the GOP is full of centrists.

Did you know the GOP abandoned the Trump endorsed candidates in the midterms and starved them of resources, virtually ensuring their Democrat opponent would win? Even then it is remarkable how well they did when outspent 100 to 1 or more!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 20, 2022, 11:38:02 AM
I'm still waiting for one of these centrists to give me an example of the last time Leftists ever actually compromised with anybody.  I mean REAL compromise (I give a little, you give a little), not their definition of compromise, which is "everything will go my way and you will shut up and sit down and like it."

The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

Attempted gaslighting, again. 20 yard penalty. Surrender the ball to the opposite team. First down.

It's not an attempt and it's not subtle. You are fucking crazy Jeff :) I still love you despite your obvious insanity.

You post shit like this and then say that you aren't trying to gaslight people into believing your lies.


The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.
The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

The "leftists" whoa are the progressives will not compromise anymore than the Trumpers will compromise. The rest however are compromising with each other.

And I know, from the perspective of a Trumper everyone who isn't a Trumper is a leftist or RINO. Much like form the perspective of a progressive anyone who isn't a progressive is a Trumper or a DINO. Which is why you think everyone either thinks like you or is a leftist or traitor or whatever. Your view of politics itself has more in common with a progressive than with a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. Extremists are similar to Extremists on certain ways of viewing things.

This is just more of the same schtick you always pull.
My schtick is telling hard truths.

Oh? Then please provide the proof upon which your "hard truths" are based. Show us how you have arrived at your "hard truths" conclusions. Convince us.

You're not convincible if it comes from me.  I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar instinctively.



Then you have nothing. Your justifications can be summed up by saying that you like team sports and you like team blue. Thanks for the confirmation.


I do wonder what would happen if I started to say Traveler is a great game.

Nothing.
 Just "starting to" to say something is meaningless because if you would have the courage of your convictions, then you would just say it.

But if I say Traveler is a great game it might put you in the awkward position of instinctively feeling like you must disagree with me. And like I said I love you man. I don't want to do that to you.

*snerk*
You'd have to get the correct spelling first since as is, you are talking about an insurance company.  Which just goes to show that you know fuck all about what you are talking, again.

See that's the spirit!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 20, 2022, 11:40:04 AM
The Democratic party has lots of centrists. Most of their progressives have not been doing so good.

Bwahahahahaa. I nearly split a gut when I read that. There are not centrists in the Democrat party.

The Republican party now has more centrists. Most of their Trumpers have not been doing so good.

If by centrist you mean Republicans who roll over and cower whenever the Liberal media calls them out as bigots, homophobes, nazis whenever they don't go along with the Democrat party, then yeah I guess the GOP is full of centrists.

Did you know the GOP abandoned the Trump endorsed candidates in the midterms and starved them of resources, virtually ensuring their Democrat opponent would win? Even then it is remarkable how well they did when outspent 100 to 1 or more!

Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.

And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 20, 2022, 01:42:53 PM
I became more amenable to Trump after his first term. The shenanigans that went on to make sure he wasn't re-elected has made me deeply suspicious of our institutions, to the point of resentment.

Ben Shapiro also said that he didn’t like trump but voted for him the second time. The reason was that the Democrats had gone batshit crazy. I agree with this
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on December 20, 2022, 02:43:20 PM
One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.
Out of all the fascists, I think old Franco is my fave. 
Dollfuss we be a close second.  I mean it's hard to hate on a fascist who repressed both commies and nazis. 
;-)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MeganovaStella on December 20, 2022, 11:37:21 PM
One day we'll get an Augusto Pinochet or a Francisco Franco, or maybe even a Napoleon or a Julius Caesar. It will be both great and terrible.
Out of all the fascists, I think old Franco is my fave. 
Dollfuss we be a close second.  I mean it's hard to hate on a fascist who repressed both commies and nazis. 
;-)

was that because they were the least bad fascists?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 21, 2022, 06:40:43 AM

Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.

And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.

What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 21, 2022, 06:43:17 AM

Out of all the fascists, I think old Franco is my fave. 
Dollfuss we be a close second.  I mean it's hard to hate on a fascist who repressed both commies and nazis. 
;-)

Franco was the man. And there's about a spits difference between commies and national socialists.

I do think Pinochet's helicopter tours were a nice touch though. Really sends a message.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 21, 2022, 08:08:44 AM

Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.

And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.

What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.

I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 21, 2022, 02:02:30 PM
You are correct that the divisions of the 1960s never went away, and really in everything else you said.  I misspoke.  I should have said that the more radical elements, like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground lost influence because they basically got their way.  The Weather Underground also murdered some people and attempted terrorist bombings, IIRC, which was a step too far for even the elements in the government and media that were sympathetic to them.  My main point to jhkim was that nothing got solved by liberals and conservatives agreeing on anything -- the Left basically just got its way, and the Right backed down.

I don't agree that either the Black Panther Party or the Weather Underground got their way.


The Black Panther Party dissolved in the 1970s. The 1980s that followed had the War on Drugs and a huge increase in incarceration rates throughout the country - especially for black people. After limits placed in the 1950s and 1960s, police powers increased during the War on Drugs, like asset seizure, RICO, and federal powers of the DEA and ATF. The country moved opposite the direction the Black Panthers wanted. The Black Panthers did not care about affirmative action - they were philosophically opposed to advancement by joining into the white establishment.

Likewise, the Weather Underground did not get its way except for the end of the Vietnam War. Their goal was openly the overthrow of the U.S. government, and to undo global imperialism and capitalist oppression. However, the U.S. continued to be quite interventionist in the 1980s and later - in Panama, Honduras, Haiti, Grenada, Iraq, etc. Moreover, from the 1980s on, the U.S. has seen an increase in income inequality and an expansion of corporate power - especially with financial market deregulation in the 1980s (Marquette vs. First of Omaha, Garn-St. Germain, etc.). That's all directly opposite of the Weather Underground's goals.


The people who got their way are pro-corporate, pro-police-power, educated elites. I suspect you're calling such people leftists, in saying they got their way. However, most of the 1960s leftists would call them the enemy. I think such elites are happy to align themselves with either left or right opportunistically.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: The Spaniard on December 21, 2022, 03:48:47 PM

Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.

And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.

What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.

I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.

This is the correct answer.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 21, 2022, 04:47:08 PM

Oh, Trumpers were depending on the old time GOP party machine to win and without them they cannot win? Good to know. I mean, goes completely against the entire Trumper message and the draining the swamp and whole propaganda schtick, but good to know privately Trumpers think they do depend on the traditional GOP party machine. I guess it's all been a bunch of talk all along...at least out of one side of your mouths.

And yes, the Democratic party is not unified and has centrists. Heck, for all she is vilified, Pelosi is nothing like AOC.

What are you blathering on about? The GOP base nominated Trump, he didn't run as an independent. It was the elites in the party that sabotaged conservative candidates.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.

My man, that later part is pure fiction. I understand conspiracy theory nonsense Qanon clickbaiters have promoted that myth but there is zero evidence supporting it and it doesn't even make sense when you lift the lid even a tiny bit on those claims. I guarantee you will abandon that nonsense in a year for some other stupid conspiracy theory nonsense.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 21, 2022, 06:17:00 PM
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.

I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.

I simplified for sake of an easily digestible post. There are plenty of places you can read in detail how it worked, and you can also find plenty of Dem stooges trying their best to explain it away with the willing aid of the leftist media.

edit: changed liberal to leftist. An important distinction.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 21, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
Greetings!

Indeed, Thornad. And we can also see how so many Liberals are living in absolute denial as they jump through hoops and perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to deny the brutal truth of how corrupt, filthy, and disgusting the Democrat Party is.

Elon Musk's Twitter dumps have completely pulled back the veil and put on full display how evil and corrupt the Democrat Party is. But you will still have cock-sucking Libtards voting for Democrats and supporting these disgusting animals.

That is why there needs to be a very large fleet of helicopters to provide so many of these Marxist scumbags with free helicopter rides out deep in the ocean.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 21, 2022, 06:28:31 PM
My man, that later part is pure fiction. I understand conspiracy theory nonsense Qanon clickbaiters have promoted that myth but there is zero evidence supporting it and it doesn't even make sense when you lift the lid even a tiny bit on those claims. I guarantee you will abandon that nonsense in a year for some other stupid conspiracy theory nonsense.

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly blind to the corruption of the Democrat party their sycophants are. Yuri Bezmenov was right when he said the brainwashing of Americans was so thorough that you could literally take them to a gulag to see with their own eyes what communism does and they'd still not believe it.

Still, I'll try. If you want to make even a minimal amount of effort you can find hundreds of examples where FTX funded Democrat campaigns. Here is just one blatant undeniable one reported by the ridiculously left-wing biased Yahoo: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/iowa-democrats-looking-250-000-113059188.html

So it is far from a conspiracy theory, or Qanon. For the record we who lean a little right know the GOP is corrupt, but its all we have to work with.

Your denial reveals you to be a blueanon proponent.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on December 21, 2022, 07:36:34 PM
Misty's willful blindness to the blatancy of FTX as Democrat money-laundering vehicle in Ukraine is hilarious.

The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 21, 2022, 08:37:04 PM
The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.

⬆️ This

Precisely as Eisenhower warned us. Only it is worse. Much worse. I wasn't expecting the warmongers to take over the DNC, but it appears they control them too, and have for a long time. Late stage Republic we are in.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 21, 2022, 10:06:37 PM
I suspect it was slightly more convoluted, but I think you're overall correct.

I have had a suspicion for a long time that a lot of this 'foreign aid' gets laundered and rolled right back into Beltway pockets. Ukraine was just one of the easiest places to do it (due to being amazingly corrupt). Hence the epic-tier freakout when Trump started nosing around, and why suddenly We Must Protect Ukraine is a thing.

I simplified for sake of an easily digestible post. There are plenty of places you can read in detail how it worked, and you can also find plenty of Dem stooges trying their best to explain it away with the willing aid of the leftist media.

edit: changed liberal to leftist. An important distinction.

LOL you're talking about people literally making shit up as they go to come up with a theory they like as if they are "detail[ing] how it worked" like it's facts they're providing. There isn't a shred of evidence involved. It's just sets of innocuous facts which people use "and then magic happened" to connect them.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 21, 2022, 10:08:03 PM
Misty's willful blindness to the blatancy of FTX as Democrat money-laundering vehicle in Ukraine is hilarious.

The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.

I mean it's so blatant there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!

Cue "Of course we can't prove it, they're hiding the evidence, which is proof it happened!" nonsense type circular response.

It's "FTX gave money to Dems" and "FTX connected to Ukraine" (nevermind the vagueness there right?) and "Dems [and GOP and many other nations] gave money to Ukraine" with zero evidence of "Money Dems [and many others] gave to Ukraine is money that went to FTX is the money that went to Dems" other than "It makes total sense so that must be what happened right?!" Nevermind that FTX is connected to many other sources, and gave money to many other sources, and those all also have no evidence of a connection, but let's not talk about any of those because they don't further the agenda of our conspiracy theory.

You're as pathetic as the leftists who made this same sort of connection between Russian and Trump early on. X is connected to Y is connected to Z therefore it must be X = Z and we don't need to prove the actual connections between it all because it furthers the agenda.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ghostmaker on December 22, 2022, 08:55:19 AM
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 22, 2022, 09:47:46 AM
Misty's willful blindness to the blatancy of FTX as Democrat money-laundering vehicle in Ukraine is hilarious.

The whole point of foreign adventures is to facilitate money-laundering. That's what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were really about, keeping the gravy train going as long as possible.

...there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!

Really!!??? You are either lying or sticking your head in the sand so deep that you will never pull it out.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 22, 2022, 10:10:31 PM
I mean it's so blatant there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!
It's "FTX gave money to Dems" and "FTX connected to Ukraine" (nevermind the vagueness there right?) and "Dems [and GOP and many other nations] gave money to Ukraine" with zero evidence...

You're as pathetic as the leftists who made this same sort of connection between Russian and Trump early on. X is connected to Y is connected to Z therefore it must be X = Z and we don't need to prove the actual connections between it all because it furthers the agenda.

You might want to take some solid advice that holds true today because it is a universal truth.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius

The communist Democrat party has long been the ranks of the insane.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 22, 2022, 10:11:29 PM
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.

No, I think it is quite entertaining actually. Because the statements Misty has been making are so insane.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 23, 2022, 01:53:07 PM
As I understand it, the claim is this.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.

I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.

There are dozens of executives from many corporations who donate millions to both Democrats and Republicans. I don't like that - but it is legal, especially because of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision - which was backed by the conservative justices. I don't even strongly disagree with Citizen's United. Trying to limit billionaire's power by donation limits isn't feasible. There is a problem in how much power billionaire's have - but the solution isn't spending limits, which can easily be circumvented. The problem is in how most of those people got their billions, because of pro-corporate laws.

The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.

The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 24, 2022, 01:18:23 AM
As I understand it, the claim is this.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.

I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.

There are dozens of executives from many corporations who donate millions to both Democrats and Republicans. I don't like that - but it is legal, especially because of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision - which was backed by the conservative justices. I don't even strongly disagree with Citizen's United. Trying to limit billionaire's power by donation limits isn't feasible. There is a problem in how much power billionaire's have - but the solution isn't spending limits, which can easily be circumvented. The problem is in how most of those people got their billions, because of pro-corporate laws.

The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.

The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.

Hold the presses! You mean they are a uni-party and they are ALL in on it??? I never could have guessed. Nevermind that the overwhelming amount of donations went to the Dems.

And corporations choosing to give their own money to parties...you can't see how that is different from sending billions of taxpayer money in aid and then getting that back in a roundabout way in campaign donations?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 24, 2022, 08:43:14 AM
As I understand it, the claim is this.

When you have the communist Demonrat party funneling billions to Ukraine. Then Ukraine spends a chunk of that money on FTX. And FTX then funds Demonrat campaigns, it's a little hard to counter that.

I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.

There are dozens of executives from many corporations who donate millions to both Democrats and Republicans. I don't like that - but it is legal, especially because of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision - which was backed by the conservative justices. I don't even strongly disagree with Citizen's United. Trying to limit billionaire's power by donation limits isn't feasible. There is a problem in how much power billionaire's have - but the solution isn't spending limits, which can easily be circumvented. The problem is in how most of those people got their billions, because of pro-corporate laws.

The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.

The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.

Hold the presses! You mean they are a uni-party and they are ALL in on it??? I never could have guessed. Nevermind that the overwhelming amount of donations went to the Dems.

And corporations choosing to give their own money to parties...you can't see how that is different from sending billions of taxpayer money in aid and then getting that back in a roundabout way in campaign donations?
No, they can’t. Because a huge part of being a Leftist is having to pretend not to know things. They must pretend they don’t understand cause and effort, pretend to not see the rampant corruption of the institutions they support, pretend all the media gaslighting is true, pretend to actually care for the people being devastated by the policies the Left supports.

The best of them are just rubes who really believe it. The worst wield their feigned ignorance as a weapon against those who oppose them. When the people who just want to be left alone finally snap it won’t matter which is which; once the people who want to be left alone are forced to murder the person they were to become the person needed to protect their loved ones they will cut both types down with the wrath only those who only wanted to be kind and just can know. The Left will beg for mercy, but it will be too late.

The funniest part? If they’d just stop committing treason and trying to force themselves upon us, we’d let them go. But they’re too stupid to stop. History keeps rhyming because they’re always too stupid to stop.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 12:58:13 PM
I mean it's so blatant there isn't a scintilla of evidence behind it!
It's "FTX gave money to Dems" and "FTX connected to Ukraine" (nevermind the vagueness there right?) and "Dems [and GOP and many other nations] gave money to Ukraine" with zero evidence...

You're as pathetic as the leftists who made this same sort of connection between Russian and Trump early on. X is connected to Y is connected to Z therefore it must be X = Z and we don't need to prove the actual connections between it all because it furthers the agenda.

You might want to take some solid advice that holds true today because it is a universal truth.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius

The communist Democrat party has long been the ranks of the insane.

There are crazies in the Dems and crazies in the Reps. I am No Party Preference and vote based on each candidate and not their party.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:01:53 PM
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.

No, they suck and I've never posted there beyond like maybe 5 posts. People here are at least honest with what they think. Much like I can be honest with what I think here without fear of being banned for wrongthink.

But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: squirewaldo on December 24, 2022, 01:18:01 PM
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.

No, they suck and I've never posted there beyond like maybe 5 posts. People here are at least honest with what they think. Much like I can be honest with what I think here without fear of being banned for wrongthink.

But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)

Again, with the zero evidence BS. If you close your eyes, put a bag on your head, stuff cotton in your ears, and yell NANANANANANANANA! I guess you may be able to avoid seeing or hearing the evidence. Like most people we see only what we want to see, hear only what we want to hear, and thus believe only what we want to believe. Even when the most casual observation would indicate it is all lies.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 01:35:38 PM
Take your bullshit over to TBP, Misty. It'll play better there.

No, they suck and I've never posted there beyond like maybe 5 posts. People here are at least honest with what they think. Much like I can be honest with what I think here without fear of being banned for wrongthink.

But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)

Again, with the zero evidence BS. If you close your eyes, put a bag on your head, stuff cotton in your ears, and yell NANANANANANANANA! I guess you may be able to avoid seeing or hearing the evidence. Like most people we see only what we want to see, hear only what we want to hear, and thus believe only what we want to believe. Even when the most casual observation would indicate it is all lies.

You are welcome to post that evidence. This is what, the fourth time I've asked for it? There isn't any. There is a series of unrelated facts, and then people who connect those facts with zero evidence supporting the claim they are actually connected. And every time I point that out people make it personal to me and "forget" to post any of that evidence. Because there isn't any. It's all a conspiracy theory which only works if you squint and don't ask any hard questions about it.

I even got the "You will see when it all comes out" response once. Unironically.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 24, 2022, 02:48:41 PM
Merry Christmas everyone! Try not to get to bitter here 😄
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 24, 2022, 03:02:08 PM
Merry Christmas everyone! Try not to get to bitter here 😄

Merry Christmas to you too, Trond. And to thornad and chris24601 and everyone else. I hope everyone has family and/or friends to share the holidays with.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 24, 2022, 06:47:37 PM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.

Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 24, 2022, 07:33:27 PM
I'm really surprised the Left hasn't called for Lynchburg VA to change its name yet.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 24, 2022, 11:02:52 PM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.

Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.

"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 24, 2022, 11:30:31 PM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.

Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.

"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Thor's Nads on December 25, 2022, 12:03:49 AM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.

Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.

"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"

Never called you insane. Called what you were saying insane. And if you can't see the difference, well maybe...

No, I think it is quite entertaining actually. Because the statements Misty has been making are so insane.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 25, 2022, 12:26:58 AM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.

Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.

"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

When have I said nothing personal?

When I tell you I love you, I mean it personally Jeff :)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on December 25, 2022, 01:55:33 AM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone here and their family.

Though I use hyperbolic language at times to emphasize certain points, in real life I'm mellow and moderate tilted right. And don't take anything online personal.

"I'm going to repeatedly call a stranger insane. Nothing personal!"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

When have I said nothing personal?

When I tell you I love you, I mean it personally Jeff :)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/92/233417206_f7cd1de65e_b.jpg)



Merry Christmas everyone!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on December 25, 2022, 06:34:46 PM
But I am not surprised you don't want to hear dissent. I mean, how dare I point out there is zero evidence to support your conspiracy theory, right? :)
I read all the articles about the Ukraine-FTX connection and from them I found nothing indicating that Ukraine used FTX to send money to Democrats.
All the articles mention is that people/organizations used FTX to send money TO Ukraine/organizations/people.
While I am far right, I'm always the skeptic first.

And Mery Christmas to all. :-)


Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 26, 2022, 02:22:03 PM
As to the original topic at hand

I am in my 50s, and I have seen the country change a lot over the decades. It is now more dysfunctional, radical, and polarized than in any time in its history.

This didn't really hit home for me until the BLM riots in 2020. I live in a nice suburban area, and BLM / ANTIFA was literally transported to my downtown, where the black-clad members, many carrying knives, baseball bats, and even guns, vandalized 40 businesses, assaulted 20 citizens, stabbed a couple people, and covered the buildings in spray paint. That was shocking enough, but what happened afterwards was worse

the leftists in the community  (including hundreds of high-school kids) rallied around these guys and proceeded to cover downtown stores with little post-it notes and stickers praising BLM, denouncing "racism"and white people in general.

this wasn't Seattle or Portland--it is a Midwestern city.

crime is up everywhere, homeless all over the streets, and political radicalism is growing. The US has gone from a high-trust society to a low-trust society. Our government is hopelessly corrupt.

When the riots were going on, my buddy was staying up all night, sitting in the front room of his house holding an AR-15. Are we living in Somalia now?

The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people. Last I checked, the BLM website was selling t-shirts with "1804 needs to happen again"! on them: the date of the Hatian massacre of white families during the revolution.

even in the gaming industry, we had guys like Jeff Dee posting on FB the names and addresses of the family members of the Covington Catholic kid who was wrongfully accused of racism, and telling his followers to go pay the family members a visit (aka go after them). When the truth came out, Dee didn't back off, but instead said the family were Nazis anyway, and people should still go after them. He was later forced to take some of this down by FB (amazing I know), but I think some of it remains.

When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 27, 2022, 10:40:57 AM
As to the original topic at hand

I am in my 50s, and I have seen the country change a lot over the decades. It is now more dysfunctional, radical, and polarized than in any time in its history.

This didn't really hit home for me until the BLM riots in 2020. I live in a nice suburban area, and BLM / ANTIFA was literally transported to my downtown, where the black-clad members, many carrying knives, baseball bats, and even guns, vandalized 40 businesses, assaulted 20 citizens, stabbed a couple people, and covered the buildings in spray paint. That was shocking enough, but what happened afterwards was worse

the leftists in the community  (including hundreds of high-school kids) rallied around these guys and proceeded to cover downtown stores with little post-it notes and stickers praising BLM, denouncing "racism"and white people in general.

this wasn't Seattle or Portland--it is a Midwestern city.

crime is up everywhere, homeless all over the streets, and political radicalism is growing. The US has gone from a high-trust society to a low-trust society. Our government is hopelessly corrupt.

When the riots were going on, my buddy was staying up all night, sitting in the front room of his house holding an AR-15. Are we living in Somalia now?

The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people. Last I checked, the BLM website was selling t-shirts with "1804 needs to happen again"! on them: the date of the Hatian massacre of white families during the revolution.

even in the gaming industry, we had guys like Jeff Dee posting on FB the names and addresses of the family members of the Covington Catholic kid who was wrongfully accused of racism, and telling his followers to go pay the family members a visit (aka go after them). When the truth came out, Dee didn't back off, but instead said the family were Nazis anyway, and people should still go after them. He was later forced to take some of this down by FB (amazing I know), but I think some of it remains.

When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.

And it won't get better until average everyday citizens start stacking leftist bodies when they engage in criminal terrorist activities.

The reason that the left and the media were so outraged at Rittenhouse wasn't that he shot and killed two of the three convicted felons who were trying to kill him - it's that he dared to freely walk around Kenosha and stop their rioting to begin with.

When government orders police to *not* stop criminal activity; when they order police to unlawfully interfere with the exercise of constitutionally protected activity by citizens; when you're safer in Somalia than in an average US city..

The moment that antifa and blm declared CHAZ and the state and local police did nothing, Trump should have had federalized Guardsmen in there killing them and destroying their tree fort.  Trying to reason with or placate these animals does nothing but encourage them.  And the only people who understand this are legal immigrants who've fled this type of anarchy elsewhere.

Leftists are the way they are because the West is so soft - all of the problems have been solved so they have to invent new ones and then demand ridiculous things.

It's one big grift and it ends when average citizens start by knocking their teeth down their throats - if they don't get the hint, then run the city out of body bags.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: soundchaser on December 27, 2022, 10:48:25 AM
I’m not sure the polarizing is the worst ever. I mean, well, I’m a monarchist and probably would have been among the loyalists during the Revolution. Those were very polarizing days. Maybe it’s more a ‘scale’ issue.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 27, 2022, 12:37:01 PM
As to the original topic at hand

I am in my 50s, and I have seen the country change a lot over the decades. It is now more dysfunctional, radical, and polarized than in any time in its history.

This didn't really hit home for me until the BLM riots in 2020. I live in a nice suburban area, and BLM / ANTIFA was literally transported to my downtown, where the black-clad members, many carrying knives, baseball bats, and even guns, vandalized 40 businesses, assaulted 20 citizens, stabbed a couple people, and covered the buildings in spray paint. That was shocking enough, but what happened afterwards was worse

the leftists in the community  (including hundreds of high-school kids) rallied around these guys and proceeded to cover downtown stores with little post-it notes and stickers praising BLM, denouncing "racism"and white people in general.

this wasn't Seattle or Portland--it is a Midwestern city.

crime is up everywhere, homeless all over the streets, and political radicalism is growing. The US has gone from a high-trust society to a low-trust society. Our government is hopelessly corrupt.

When the riots were going on, my buddy was staying up all night, sitting in the front room of his house holding an AR-15. Are we living in Somalia now?

The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people. Last I checked, the BLM website was selling t-shirts with "1804 needs to happen again"! on them: the date of the Hatian massacre of white families during the revolution.

even in the gaming industry, we had guys like Jeff Dee posting on FB the names and addresses of the family members of the Covington Catholic kid who was wrongfully accused of racism, and telling his followers to go pay the family members a visit (aka go after them). When the truth came out, Dee didn't back off, but instead said the family were Nazis anyway, and people should still go after them. He was later forced to take some of this down by FB (amazing I know), but I think some of it remains.

When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.

And it won't get better until average everyday citizens start stacking leftist bodies when they engage in criminal terrorist activities.

The reason that the left and the media were so outraged at Rittenhouse wasn't that he shot and killed two of the three convicted felons who were trying to kill him - it's that he dared to freely walk around Kenosha and stop their rioting to begin with.

When government orders police to *not* stop criminal activity; when they order police to unlawfully interfere with the exercise of constitutionally protected activity by citizens; when you're safer in Somalia than in an average US city..

The moment that antifa and blm declared CHAZ and the state and local police did nothing, Trump should have had federalized Guardsmen in there killing them and destroying their tree fort.  Trying to reason with or placate these animals does nothing but encourage them.  And the only people who understand this are legal immigrants who've fled this type of anarchy elsewhere.

Leftists are the way they are because the West is so soft - all of the problems have been solved so they have to invent new ones and then demand ridiculous things.

It's one big grift and it ends when average citizens start by knocking their teeth down their throats - if they don't get the hint, then run the city out of body bags.

We are experiencing the death of the American empire.  Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.  Our traitor generations promised themselves all manner of fixed incomes so they could remain "independent" from the children they treated like props, but did not pay in the money -- social security and pensions are de facto ponzi schemes kept going by federal tax collection.  Our currency is devalued through "quantitative easing", as so many dying empires have done before.  Our preachers are dogs who do not bark, their flocks full of apostates who love money.

Sadly, the average citizen is much-enamored of our consumer lifestyle.  Grillboy or Soyboy, we share the same spirit:  BLAH BLAH BLAH on the internet, glug glug glug in front of our screens.  It won't change until our precious lifestyles are destroyed, which they will be, since we won't stop picking fights all over the damned planet.

Oh well.  Homes may burn, but falling ash brings new life to the land.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 12:44:53 PM
Happy holidays again, folks. Going back to the FTX stuff that was left hanging before Christmas...

I don't know if it is counter to that - but about 75% of Republicans also voted in favor of the Ukraine aid packages. And Republicans also received many millions in donations from former FTX executive Ryan Salame, who was one of their top donors.

Hold the presses! You mean they are a uni-party and they are ALL in on it??? I never could have guessed. Nevermind that the overwhelming amount of donations went to the Dems.

I agree that to a large degree, the mainstreams of both parties are in alignment - biased towards serving corporate and monied interests. Some of them may genuinely believe their policies, but they win elections because their beliefs align with corporate interests.

As for more donations going to the Democrats... Publicly-reported donations from FTX execs were $25M to Republicans and $48M to Democrats, though there could also be dark money donations. If what you are saying is correct, then that just means that the Republicans laundered money the same way but sold their votes a little more cheaply than the Democrats. That doesn't sound like any sort of moral superiority.


The key evidence would be to show whether Ukraine gave money to FTX as kickbacks.

The question on my mind is, which Congress members have been pushing to restrict and rein in cryptocurrencies and/or corporate donations? That's who I would prefer to support, regardless of what Ukraine did with the money.

And corporations choosing to give their own money to parties...you can't see how that is different from sending billions of taxpayer money in aid and then getting that back in a roundabout way in campaign donations?

The issue is that the only thing you have offered proof of is that campaign donations were made. You haven't offered any evidence that the aid to Ukraine was diverted. If you have such evidence, I'd like to see it.

It seems to me that the more obvious explanation is that the donations were made in order to encourage support for FTX as well as cryptocurrency in general. Crypto is making billions, which regulations from Congress could easily shut down. There have been congress members who spoke out against FTX, calling to restrict and regulate it more.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on December 27, 2022, 12:48:03 PM
As for more donations going to the Democrats... Publicly-reported donations from FTX execs were $25M to Republicans and $48M to Democrats, though there could also be dark money donations. If what you are saying is correct, then that just means that the Republicans laundered money the same way but sold their votes a little more cheaply than the Democrats. That doesn't sound like any sort of moral superiority.

Of course another possibility, that you casually ignored, was maybe they were able to buy twice as many Democrats.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 27, 2022, 01:27:33 PM
We are experiencing the death of the American empire.  Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.

Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.

From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.

That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.


The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people.
When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.

I don't agree about your broad characterization of all the left there, though I agree that there are people with anti-white bias.

Still, I'd accept your point at the moment as a premise. Would you agree that there was even more significant anti-black bias in the 1950s and 1960s? The question to my mind is, do you think that black people should have debated or negotiated with those biased against them? I'm not sure how old you are. I was born in 1970. At the time, there was still very serious anti-black bias. I remember being in friend's houses and hearing their parents argue over black people being allowed in the swimming pools they used.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 27, 2022, 04:44:58 PM
We are experiencing the death of the American empire.  Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.

Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.

From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.

That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.


The political left in this country doesn't simply want power and privilege. It was to disenfranchise, punish, and even kill white people.
When I was younger, Republicans, Democrats, left and right could meet up and iron-out their differences. Sure, there was some competition and even animosity, but it was nothing like what we see today. You can't debate or negotiate with people who, at best, want to take your property and rights, and at worst, kill you.

I don't agree about your broad characterization of all the left there, though I agree that there are people with anti-white bias.

Still, I'd accept your point at the moment as a premise. Would you agree that there was even more significant anti-black bias in the 1950s and 1960s? The question to my mind is, do you think that black people should have debated or negotiated with those biased against them? I'm not sure how old you are. I was born in 1970. At the time, there was still very serious anti-black bias. I remember being in friend's houses and hearing their parents argue over black people being allowed in the swimming pools they used.

The racism against blacks was a different thing than the anti-white / anti-European sentiment we see today. To the racists in the early to mid part of the 20th century, blacks were inferior, needed to be patronized, "kept in their place", etc. Some viewed blacks with suspicion, or even hatred. And then we had Jin Crow laws and everything else.It was ugly.

This anti-white movement we see today views whites as inherent criminals. Even the white racists back in the day didn't view literally every black person in the world as guilty of blood-libel, genetically criminal, and inherently dangerous (there were some extremists that may have felt that way, but it wasn't any kind of general sentiment).

In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race

And this goes beyond identity politics and race. Look what is happening with the who transgender movement. We have a large number of people who literally believe that castrating 8-year old boys, and giving 11-year old girls double mastectomies is a good thing which should be encouraged. We have celebrities openly defending and promoting "gender-affirming care" (aka castration) for kids.

All of this is seriously evil shi*. We need to recognize it for what it is.

Either the American left rejects these people and their hateful, morally bankrupt ideologies, or this country is going to get more divided.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 27, 2022, 05:17:13 PM
Greetings!

Imagine one day seeing a TikTok video of a young mother crying hysterically as she is hauled away in chains by police, while other police take her 10-year old daughter away to be sterilized, or otherwise mutilated into becoming "Trans".

One TikTok video away from the match being struck to the gasoline.

I'm always reminded of how world wars, huge, savage rebellions, great revolutions throughout history have often been started by seemingly small, localized, insignificant events. Small things, small atrocities, small injustices--that set everything ablaze, and the storm of blood is unleashed.

I told a friend of mine, it is hard to predict precisely, because these things can literally come out of nowhere, and erupt in otherwise the most unassuming places. A suburb in Chicago. A small town school in Texas. This kind of blaze event could come from anywhere. All that is required is some overzealous Leftist teacher or school administrator, a few unthinking police, and a bystander with a cell phone.

*BOOM* Suddenly, that one blaze event spreads, and maybe it is also fueled in rapid succession by a cascade of similar events, as tyrant Marxists are wont to do so often. In a dizzying swift and short span of time, masses of people simply decide enough is enough. That switch is flipped, and the blood flows. Mass slaughter, brutal executions, savagery and chaos unleashed everywhere. The rush can be so great, so overwhelming, no power will be able to stop it. Not police. Not the military. They too, will be swept up into the storm, some rising with it, and some trying to fight against it. This is what history tells us about how these things go so often.

The Leftists will beg and sob, but there will be no mercy shown to them. The switch will have been flipped, and the masses will rise up to cleanse society. The degenerate tyrants will be first on the list. There will be no escape. No laws, no lawyers, their money won't save them.

The moment will be savage, brutal, and utterly ruthless.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Daztur on December 27, 2022, 11:52:08 PM
Greetings!

Imagine one day seeing a TikTok video of a young mother crying hysterically as she is hauled away in chains by police, while other police take her 10-year old daughter away to be sterilized, or otherwise mutilated into becoming "Trans".

One TikTok video away from the match being struck to the gasoline.

I'm always reminded of how world wars, huge, savage rebellions, great revolutions throughout history have often been started by seemingly small, localized, insignificant events. Small things, small atrocities, small injustices--that set everything ablaze, and the storm of blood is unleashed.

I told a friend of mine, it is hard to predict precisely, because these things can literally come out of nowhere, and erupt in otherwise the most unassuming places. A suburb in Chicago. A small town school in Texas. This kind of blaze event could come from anywhere. All that is required is some overzealous Leftist teacher or school administrator, a few unthinking police, and a bystander with a cell phone.

*BOOM* Suddenly, that one blaze event spreads, and maybe it is also fueled in rapid succession by a cascade of similar events, as tyrant Marxists are wont to do so often. In a dizzying swift and short span of time, masses of people simply decide enough is enough. That switch is flipped, and the blood flows. Mass slaughter, brutal executions, savagery and chaos unleashed everywhere. The rush can be so great, so overwhelming, no power will be able to stop it. Not police. Not the military. They too, will be swept up into the storm, some rising with it, and some trying to fight against it. This is what history tells us about how these things go so often.

The Leftists will beg and sob, but there will be no mercy shown to them. The switch will have been flipped, and the masses will rise up to cleanse society. The degenerate tyrants will be first on the list. There will be no escape. No laws, no lawyers, their money won't save them.

The moment will be savage, brutal, and utterly ruthless.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/019/304/old.jpg)
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 28, 2022, 01:31:16 AM
Greetings!

Imagine one day seeing a TikTok video of a young mother crying hysterically as she is hauled away in chains by police, while other police take her 10-year old daughter away to be sterilized, or otherwise mutilated into becoming "Trans".

One TikTok video away from the match being struck to the gasoline.

I'm always reminded of how world wars, huge, savage rebellions, great revolutions throughout history have often been started by seemingly small, localized, insignificant events. Small things, small atrocities, small injustices--that set everything ablaze, and the storm of blood is unleashed.

I told a friend of mine, it is hard to predict precisely, because these things can literally come out of nowhere, and erupt in otherwise the most unassuming places. A suburb in Chicago. A small town school in Texas. This kind of blaze event could come from anywhere. All that is required is some overzealous Leftist teacher or school administrator, a few unthinking police, and a bystander with a cell phone.

*BOOM* Suddenly, that one blaze event spreads, and maybe it is also fueled in rapid succession by a cascade of similar events, as tyrant Marxists are wont to do so often. In a dizzying swift and short span of time, masses of people simply decide enough is enough. That switch is flipped, and the blood flows. Mass slaughter, brutal executions, savagery and chaos unleashed everywhere. The rush can be so great, so overwhelming, no power will be able to stop it. Not police. Not the military. They too, will be swept up into the storm, some rising with it, and some trying to fight against it. This is what history tells us about how these things go so often.

The Leftists will beg and sob, but there will be no mercy shown to them. The switch will have been flipped, and the masses will rise up to cleanse society. The degenerate tyrants will be first on the list. There will be no escape. No laws, no lawyers, their money won't save them.

The moment will be savage, brutal, and utterly ruthless.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/019/304/old.jpg)

Greetings!

Yes. No doubt, it may seem like I am shouting at the clouds. However, everything I described is detailed in historical events and dynamics. That is the way these things go much of the time. Such chaos is not a scenario that I would want, but events and cultural dynamics are what they are. Our society is going insane by the day, with Marxist tyrants and morons brainwashed by Marxist-inspired propaganda gathering more power to themselves and driving our country off a cliff into fucking clown-world.

It is what it is.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 28, 2022, 01:51:25 PM
We are experiencing the death of the American empire.  Our armed forces have spent decades spilling blood on foreign soil but do not defend our borders, and have been adulterated with every type of pussy one could imagine.

Oh look, the actual fucking racist is back.

And before anyone defends Alathon as "not a racist" please do avail yourself of his prior posts here. He is, by any definition of the term, a racist. No really, the traditional kind of racist you also agree means racist, and not some new wishy washy definition.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on December 28, 2022, 02:40:23 PM
Grillboy or Soyboy, we share the same spirit:  BLAH BLAH BLAH on the internet, glug glug glug in front of our screens.
What the heck is a "grillboy"?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 28, 2022, 02:50:23 PM
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race

Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.

For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.

I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.

Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on December 28, 2022, 02:59:31 PM
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race

Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.

For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.

I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.

Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.

The problem with the "learning" is that it is almost exclusively "learn why your systems/skin color/history is evil and oppressive," and when people push back that they don't agree, they're called racists with thin skin.

I find 90% of the "facts" pushed by groups like BLM to be absolute horseshit. If your church group and friend group support them, then they're drones.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 28, 2022, 05:54:03 PM
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race

Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.

For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.

I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.

Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.

The problem with the "learning" is that it is almost exclusively "learn why your systems/skin color/history is evil and oppressive," and when people push back that they don't agree, they're called racists with thin skin.

I find 90% of the "facts" pushed by groups like BLM to be absolute horseshit. If your church group and friend group support them, then they're drones.

Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously.  Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players).  In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow.  Which, of course, is stupid on its face.  A single good-hearted Nazi doesn't invalidate the assertion that Nazis were evil followers of an evil ideology.  A nice Klansman doesn't redeem all Klansmen, and generalizing that Klansmen are racist is still completely justified.  So, jhkim's assertion that he knows of a BLM-supporting church only proves that: A, he goes to church with very stupid, virtue-signaling people, or B, (if the church even exists) he goes to church with people who know exactly how vile BLM is and hide behind platitudes to escape criticism for their support of racism.  Because BLM is a vile, racist ideology founded on a fiction and responsible for violence, death, and massive amounts of grifting.  If your "church" thinks it can learn something (positive) from BLM, then it has little relationship with actual religion or holiness.  You've slapped "church" on your country club (like the Universalist Unitarian church)...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 28, 2022, 06:38:10 PM
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously.  Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players).  In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow.  Which, of course, is stupid on its face.

Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.


EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 28, 2022, 07:01:49 PM
In other words, these leftists of today (white and black) not only hate white people, they are convinced that whites are collectively guilty of crimes against humanity. It isn't about keeping people in their place, it is about actively punishing them. If given unlimited governmental and police power, every member of the BLM organization would round up whites, put them into camps, and gas them to death. Women, children, everybody. These are profoundly hateful and resentful people who are out to exact revenge on an entire race

Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I'm curious to know about your personal experience with such people.

For example, my church has a Black Lives Matter banner out front, but we don't believe in active punishment that I can tell. Most of the congregation is white, and to the degree that we engage with racial issues, the emphasis has been on learning - through education, engagement, etc. I also have a friend, Rahman, who was invited to speak at a Black Lives Matter protest two years ago. He also emphasized learning as the way forward - advocating for required training for police.

I believe there are hateful people, but they haven't been a part of my experience, so I'd be interested in comparing notes.

Incidentally, I'd also say that I don't believe in blanket labeling of people on the other side, either. I think dialog between people of different sides is vital to moving forward.

I speak specifically of hardcore ideological people, not simply those oblivious souls who are along for the ride. There have been plenty of black activists who were honestly out to improve the lot of their people and to achieve equality. I have known them and get along fine with them.

notice how I don't use the terms "equity" or justice, because those are something different altogether. Equity and justice imply that rights and property have been stolen, that oppression is endemic, and that whites are the criminals responsible for all of this

there are reasonable people, who may be wrong on some issues, and then there are extremists, who won't tolerate dissent or debate.

Hardcore identity politics is poison. It pits black against white, Russian against Ukrainian, Khmer against Vietnamese, Hutu against Tutsi. And it always starts with some vague idea that "your people" have been wronged by another group.

It doesn't belong in any church, and there is nothing Christian about it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on December 28, 2022, 07:07:54 PM
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously.  Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players).  In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow.  Which, of course, is stupid on its face.

Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.


EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.

I'm not sure who lies more, you or Mistwell.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 28, 2022, 10:49:24 PM
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously.  Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players).  In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow.  Which, of course, is stupid on its face.

Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.


EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.

I'm not sure who lies more, you or Mistwell.

Dang Jeff, you can't believe your lying eyes now? What is it you think he's lying about here?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 28, 2022, 11:37:57 PM
So, jhkim's assertion that he knows of a BLM-supporting church only proves that: A, he goes to church with very stupid, virtue-signaling people, or B, (if the church even exists) he goes to church with people who know exactly how vile BLM is and hide behind platitudes to escape criticism for their support of racism.  Because BLM is a vile, racist ideology founded on a fiction and responsible for violence, death, and massive amounts of grifting.  If your "church" thinks it can learn something (positive) from BLM, then it has little relationship with actual religion or holiness.  You've slapped "church" on your country club (like the Universalist Unitarian church)...

Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

LOL!  Did I call it or what?  He's so far up his own ass he can't even see when he's proving my point!

The only way anyone at an Unitarian Universalist church is going to "find" Jesus is if Jesus doesn't see him coming first...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on December 29, 2022, 06:07:25 AM
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.

If I were you I would ask the church at the very least to tone it down, or to change to another church.
America's racial issues are toxic, and after moving here I have come to the realization that BLM and the current Democratic party are at the center of this, not so much the Republicans. Notice how Biden reacted to the Georgia voting laws, despite that nobody could actually explain how the law was racist ("Jim Crow on steroids", why the hell would you say that right after the riots started to die down). Another example of how far it has gone are various statements by Nick Cannon, and his show was still promoted everywhere in LA despite widely known anit-white racist statements. The LGBTQ part is sort of reinforcing that this church supports the hard line leftists. Conservatives would probably stop right there at the door and go elsewhere. So I am pretty sure, seeing this image of the church, it's part of the movement that is making America worse, not better.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on December 29, 2022, 06:47:43 AM
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.

If I were you I would ask the church at the very least to tone it down, or to change to another church.

Why would he? It makes him feel virtuous. In fact he goes there specifically because they share his ideology.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 29, 2022, 07:45:15 AM
Well, don't take jhkim's anecdotes to seriously.  Were you to believe everything he tells you, he's had personal experiences with every topic that shows up on this site (from BLM churches to trans volleyball players).  In fact, his general modus operandi is to jump in on a thread with a personal anecdote that supposedly should caution you against overly generalizing some liberal sacred cow.  Which, of course, is stupid on its face.

Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.


EDITED TO ADD: I'm happy to talk more about the topic in another post, but the criticism that I'm lying about my anecdotes is off. I do feel indignant at the accusation, but I am happy to have dialog about the other points.

Like most progressive regressives, they make it sound like America is more racist now than in the past.

https://www.uua.org/multiculturalism/racial-justice/history/jtw

Quote
Yet we live in a world in which oppressive structures prevent us from living out these Principles. Although legal segregation in America ended with the passage of civil rights laws in the 1960's, many primary institutions and systems of our nation including business, health care, criminal justice, media, etc., were little affected by these laws.

In our congregations white culture is considered to be the norm and People of Color are expected to assimilate into this white culture.

The focus of much of our justice work is on the victims of racism and not the oppressors that benefit from racism.

We need to put greater focus on the power and privilege that white people have in our racist society.

This is the bullshit screed of ideologues who need an oppressor/oppressed narrative to drive hate and division in society.


Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 29, 2022, 09:14:46 AM
Eirikrautha - my anecdotes are genuine, which can often be checked since I'm public with my identity. If you have doubts, here's my church:

(https://www.uufrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/UUFRC-Front.jpg)

Source: https://www.uufrc.org/racial-justice/

If you want to log in then, I'll be worship associate on services on this New Year's Day at 10:30am Pacific time. My full name is John Hanju Kim - I'm listed as "Hanju Kim" in the services. I've been worship associate about a dozen times over the past two years - I can give links for me speaking in past services if anyone's interested.

If I were you I would ask the church at the very least to tone it down, or to change to another church.
America's racial issues are toxic, and after moving here I have come to the realization that BLM and the current Democratic party are at the center of this, not so much the Republicans. Notice how Biden reacted to the Georgia voting laws, despite that nobody could actually explain how the law was racist ("Jim Crow on steroids", why the hell would you say that right after the riots started to die down). Another example of how far it has gone are various statements by Nick Cannon, and his show was still promoted everywhere in LA despite widely known anit-white racist statements. The LGBTQ part is sort of reinforcing that this church supports the hard line leftists. Conservatives would probably stop right there at the door and go elsewhere. So I am pretty sure, seeing this image of the church, it's part of the movement that is making America worse, not better.
But making America worse is THE GOAL of the Left.

How else to get people whose lives were pretty good to go along with Leftist policies whose stated purpose is to “help” but their only real function is to further enrich selected elitists?

Undermine local law enforcement and make crime rampant so they can push an expanded federal police force and gun confiscation so the public can’t protest when cronies embezzle their tax dollars.

Drive up fuel prices with their policies to push billions upon billions into the pockets of their “green energy” cronies.

Drive up inflation to suck wealth out of the middle class and into the institutions given all that freshly created money.

Keep the population divided with disgusting and divisive social issues so they won’t unite against the people robbing everyone blind.

Divide and conquer is the plan of the Left. It’s why you can’t deal honestly with them. They aren’t looking for a solution or middle ground, just more division so they can continue to conquer.

Let’s also be clear that the Three Micks (McConnel, McCarthy, McDaniel) representing the establishment Republicans are all in on divide and conquer to rape us of our wealth too. They’re mainly there to provide a false choice while the Uniparty keeps moving the ball forward and as long as they get their cut of the spoils they’re happy to let it continue.

President Trump was an existential threat to their grift because he was uniting the middle and essentially doing a hostile takeover of the Republican wing of the Uniparty Vulture and was moving to shut down many of their grifts like foreign aid kickbacks, Chinese money for sucking our manufacturing class dry, trying to end the Endless Wars that funneled all sorts of money to the contractors, shutting down the payoffs to look the other way as people and drugs were trafficked across our southern border.

Follow the money. It’s always about the money. The productive classes (the people who actually make things) have it. The Elitists (who generally produce nothing) want it and will use any means to get it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: KindaMeh on December 29, 2022, 01:16:28 PM
I feel like the average American, or likewise the typical person I might disagree with on either side of the aisle (but more likely the left, given my positions), is not completely beyond facts and reasonable discourse. While cancel culture is a poison that is eating away at the ability to conduct open discourse it isn’t at the level of support yet where it can totally shut down dialogue.

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that change doesn’t happen overnight and changing opinions requires regular exposure to differing opinions and solid reasoning as to why one’s current position doesn’t fit well with reality. I think generally what would be needed for reconciliation is a lot of discomfort and suffering through conversations. By this I do not mean one sided lectures, though honesty is important. Basically everyone not notably left of center would need to speak up and represent themselves well, but especially those right of center. Especially when talking to the youth, because age demographics are not friendly to what I consider reasonable discourse within our nation’s future.

Honestly, though, I’m thinking this is unlikely and in the long run Gen Z (which I guess I’m technically part of) will shit the bed big time. Partly because of this, we will become a racially discriminatory socialist hellhole.

But yeah, basically we would need well reasoned pushes into the hearts and minds of those who can be convinced and a societal shift back towards discourse and free speech where that would win out. But that takes putting up with a lot of bullshit and discomfort and I don’t think it would happen.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 29, 2022, 01:23:52 PM
OK, Eirikrautha and jeff37923's accusations of lying got me a little ticked off, but on reflection, it's silly to be annoyed and I'd prefer things to not be confrontational. It is what it is.

Going back to the "reconciliation" in the topic of the thread - I don't think it's possible, but I do think some dialog and understanding is possible - even though we'll still be vigorously opposed on many topics. By being honest with each other, I think it's possible to have real dialog even if we don't agree. I'm open to criticism and disagreement to my positions - but they are my genuine positions and experiences.

Going back to MerrillWeathermay...

I speak specifically of hardcore ideological people, not simply those oblivious souls who are along for the ride. There have been plenty of black activists who were honestly out to improve the lot of their people and to achieve equality. I have known them and get along fine with them.
there are reasonable people, who may be wrong on some issues, and then there are extremists, who won't tolerate dissent or debate.

Thanks, MerrillWeathermay. That sounds more nuanced than what I previously read.

I agree that there are extremists who are opposed to dissent or debate. But I think that partisan politics can obscure what other people are truly like. Most people on either left or right have a bunch of misconceptions, but they still want things to be better for everyone.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 29, 2022, 04:43:34 PM
Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.

From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.

That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.

Thank you for your kind words.

Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of.  Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage.  Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.

The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities.  Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women.  The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't.  Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it.  Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.

It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities.  This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen.  It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit.  Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on December 29, 2022, 06:21:55 PM
Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.

The warmongering isn't feckless, it's incidental. The whole point is to facilitate industrial scale money-laundering. Plenty of RINOs are getting rich off the whole scam, so don't give a fuck who dies in the process.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 29, 2022, 06:27:11 PM
We just need to admit that we need a hard reset.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 29, 2022, 08:47:29 PM
We just need to admit that we need a hard reset.

So who do you want hung, specifically?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Eirikrautha on December 29, 2022, 11:48:25 PM
We just need to admit that we need a hard reset.

So who do you want hung, specifically?

I'm already hung.  As to who needs to be hanged...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Daztur on December 30, 2022, 12:58:29 AM
I feel like the average American, or likewise the typical person I might disagree with on either side of the aisle (but more likely the left, given my positions), is not completely beyond facts and reasonable discourse. While cancel culture is a poison that is eating away at the ability to conduct open discourse it isn’t at the level of support yet where it can totally shut down dialogue.

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that change doesn’t happen overnight and changing opinions requires regular exposure to differing opinions and solid reasoning as to why one’s current position doesn’t fit well with reality. I think generally what would be needed for reconciliation is a lot of discomfort and suffering through conversations. By this I do not mean one sided lectures, though honesty is important. Basically everyone not notably left of center would need to speak up and represent themselves well, but especially those right of center. Especially when talking to the youth, because age demographics are not friendly to what I consider reasonable discourse within our nation’s future.

Honestly, though, I’m thinking this is unlikely and in the long run Gen Z (which I guess I’m technically part of) will shit the bed big time. Partly because of this, we will become a racially discriminatory socialist hellhole.

But yeah, basically we would need well reasoned pushes into the hearts and minds of those who can be convinced and a societal shift back towards discourse and free speech where that would win out. But that takes putting up with a lot of bullshit and discomfort and I don’t think it would happen.

If you want to win the hearts and minds of people then perhaps it would be a good idea to draw a clean line between reasonable conservatism and the constant calls for mass bloodshed that have filled this thread.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: KindaMeh on December 30, 2022, 03:03:11 AM
I feel like the average American, or likewise the typical person I might disagree with on either side of the aisle (but more likely the left, given my positions), is not completely beyond facts and reasonable discourse. While cancel culture is a poison that is eating away at the ability to conduct open discourse it isn’t at the level of support yet where it can totally shut down dialogue.

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that change doesn’t happen overnight and changing opinions requires regular exposure to differing opinions and solid reasoning as to why one’s current position doesn’t fit well with reality. I think generally what would be needed for reconciliation is a lot of discomfort and suffering through conversations. By this I do not mean one sided lectures, though honesty is important. Basically everyone not notably left of center would need to speak up and represent themselves well, but especially those right of center. Especially when talking to the youth, because age demographics are not friendly to what I consider reasonable discourse within our nation’s future.

Honestly, though, I’m thinking this is unlikely and in the long run Gen Z (which I guess I’m technically part of) will shit the bed big time. Partly because of this, we will become a racially discriminatory socialist hellhole.

But yeah, basically we would need well reasoned pushes into the hearts and minds of those who can be convinced and a societal shift back towards discourse and free speech where that would win out. But that takes putting up with a lot of bullshit and discomfort and I don’t think it would happen.

If you want to win the hearts and minds of people then perhaps it would be a good idea to draw a clean line between reasonable conservatism and the constant calls for mass bloodshed that have filled this thread.

Just a thought.

I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans, especially as the vast majority are not to my mind beyond reason in either direction. Likewise, I have made my own personal positions relatively clear while attempting to discuss and maintain good faith interactions with folks on multiple other threads.

I’m not a fan of genuine racism, actual discrimination and unequal treatment under the law and the like either, and believe most folks on this forum would agree with me on that. I feel like rational and measured discourse would indeed help temper society against government infringement on civil liberties and the like as well as promote various other goals and policies.

That said, this discussion of reconciliation is not about winning hearts and minds for all my specific political positions and their minutiae. Or delineating what I think a rational left, right, or center might ultimately look like or accomplish. Rather, I spoke what I felt was relevant to the thread and on topic.

 For there to be reconciliation there needs first and foremost to be good faith discourse with an attempt towards solid reasoning and expression, not a focus on the promotion or delineation of specific dogma, however ostensibly valid or well meaning it may seem to me. I think the arguments of the left dominate a lot of the media and society, leading to ostracism and silencing of many dissenting opinions, especially within a younger generation that seems less tolerant and willing to engage in discussion with those of differing opinions. The right has its own versions of cancel culture, and UNLISTENING extremism, that are also an issue, but in the future seem unlikely to remain an any way dominant under the crushing weight of demographic shifts. I think everyone would need to discuss and open the pathways of communication soon if America is to reconcile with itself, because we are indeed becoming more and more isolated in our own polarizing bubbles and echo chambers.

 (I also suspect it would need to happen prior to gen z and later just taking things completely woke. In a way that does not seem to accept critics or debaters as anything other than undesirables whose words must never be trusted or critically examined. But that might just be me doom and glooming.)

Hopefully this all makes rough sense and adds to the discussion here.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 30, 2022, 03:11:22 AM
The warmongering isn't feckless, it's incidental. The whole point is to facilitate industrial scale money-laundering. Plenty of RINOs are getting rich off the whole scam, so don't give a fuck who dies in the process.
I'll grant you that for our oligarchs it is not feckless, they stand to profit handsomely, and it worked out for them last time around.

Mainline conservatives generally don't believe that's what it's about though, they genuinely think we're the good guys who beat up the bad guys in WW2, and we can do it again in Ukraine, just like Grampa did!  They don't see pressuring EU members into vast donations of military hardware as a way to create demand for Raytheon and General Dynamics, both by depriving EU member states of much of their military stockpiles and by inciting hostility with Russia to stir up even more future sales.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 30, 2022, 10:48:36 AM
The warmongering isn't feckless, it's incidental. The whole point is to facilitate industrial scale money-laundering. Plenty of RINOs are getting rich off the whole scam, so don't give a fuck who dies in the process.
I'll grant you that for our oligarchs it is not feckless, they stand to profit handsomely, and it worked out for them last time around.

Mainline conservatives generally don't believe that's what it's about though, they genuinely think we're the good guys who beat up the bad guys in WW2, and we can do it again in Ukraine, just like Grampa did!  They don't see pressuring EU members into vast donations of military hardware as a way to create demand for Raytheon and General Dynamics, both by depriving EU member states of much of their military stockpiles and by inciting hostility with Russia to stir up even more future sales.

true story.

The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective. We can look at the narratives vs. the realities:

1. "We must support Ukraine and give Putin a lesson"! --No, we don't need to do that. While Putin is a total thug and a criminal, Zelensky is also corrupt and authoritarian. Getting into some proxy war between these two countries serves absolutely no national interest here in the US save for providing profits for the military industrial complex. NATO should not have expanded eastwards--we did that under Yeltsen, and even he was upset about it. This idea that Russia will send troops into the Baltic states or Poland if those countries don't get defense agreements from the US is nonsense. Putin can't even hold onto 20% of the Ukraine with his horseshi* army, and has lost 100k men in the process. The GDP of Texas is bigger tan that of Russia. We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.

2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here

3. Both parties engage in reckless spending and have mortgage the future of our kids. Sure, the Dems are worse, but spending was insane under Bush and Trump

We have the new speaker of the house promising he will go to Taiwan just to start shit with China and potentially start a war. How does this serve US national interests? "We need the chips from Taiwan"! --no, we need to make those fu**ing chips here.

None of this is nationalist, or even populist. Globalist oligarchs and business tycoons run our government. They are supported by career politicians and overpaid civil servants

/end rant
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 30, 2022, 02:23:03 PM
true story.

The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective. We can look at the narratives vs. the realities:

1. "We must support Ukraine and give Putin a lesson"! --No, we don't need to do that. While Putin is a total thug and a criminal, Zelensky is also corrupt and authoritarian. Getting into some proxy war between these two countries serves absolutely no national interest here in the US save for providing profits for the military industrial complex. NATO should not have expanded eastwards--we did that under Yeltsen, and even he was upset about it. This idea that Russia will send troops into the Baltic states or Poland if those countries don't get defense agreements from the US is nonsense. Putin can't even hold onto 20% of the Ukraine with his horseshi* army, and has lost 100k men in the process. The GDP of Texas is bigger tan that of Russia. We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.

2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here

3. Both parties engage in reckless spending and have mortgage the future of our kids. Sure, the Dems are worse, but spending was insane under Bush and Trump

We have the new speaker of the house promising he will go to Taiwan just to start shit with China and potentially start a war. How does this serve US national interests? "We need the chips from Taiwan"! --no, we need to make those fu**ing chips here.

None of this is nationalist, or even populist. Globalist oligarchs and business tycoons run our government. They are supported by career politicians and overpaid civil servants

/end rant

I suppose if I wanted to be black pilled about it, I could circle back to the OP and say "reconciliation is unnecessary because the uniparty is already working as intended".  Whether soyboy or grillboy, most Americans seem quite content to bitch about the other side and avoid cleaning their own house.  Standards of living have declined and will continue to decline, but a plurality of Americans think watching their sportsball of choice deserves a hundred times more hours each year than investigating their leadership.

Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though.  Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone.  It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will.  After all, this is the status quo right now -- a small cadre of money-worshipping anti-Christian globalists dominating the West through propaganda media, sham courts, and gunmen with badges.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on December 30, 2022, 03:01:27 PM
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective.
1. ... We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.

2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here

These seem like points of potential dialog - if not the "reconciliation" of the title.

I and many other liberals have been vocal about the problems of the military-industrial complex and the problems of U.S. constant military interventions - especially since Vietnam in the 1960s. We might disagree about some specifics, but we could agree on principles and generally reducing military spending. I've mentioned here before that while I've been opposed to over 90% of U.S. wars. Even though there are a handful of wars I supported, lets not let 90% agreement be the enemy of perfect alignment.

Also, national health insurance is something many Democrats have backed - but it has always been shot down, and any mention of reducing healthcare spending gets targeted as "death panels".


Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of.  Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage.  Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.

The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities.  Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women.  The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't.  Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it.  Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.

It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities.  This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen.  It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit.  Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.

By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.

Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?

My parents both came from deeply religious Christian families, and I've found devout Christian conservatives easier to connect with than secular conservatives. Also, the most devout Christians that I know are mostly non-white - notably Latino Catholics, black Congregationalists, and Korean Presbyterians. Even among conservative white Christians, most of the ones I know considered all ethnicities to be united under God, and deliberately sought out united effort with other ethnicities.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: DocJones on December 30, 2022, 04:34:55 PM
By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.

Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?
It is well known that many of the early neocons were 1960's liberal anti-communist hawks in the mold of Kennedy.
Many of the early ones happened to be Jewish... David Bell, Irving Kristol, Norm Podheretz, etc.
It has nothing to do with religion as just as many were atheists or secularists as were religious.
There are far more non-jewish conservatives who would be called neoconservative.
Patrick Moynihan, Henry Jackson, Mike Pompeo, and on and on.
Criticism of neoconservatives  has been used as both a defense (those criticizing it are antisemitic)  and both an antisemetic attack.
Someone using the term "judeo-con" clearly believes one of the endless anti-Jewish conspiracies that nutters are always inventing.
You should ignore them.

P.S. Not a neocon myself.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 30, 2022, 05:34:03 PM
By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.

Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?

My parents both came from deeply religious Christian families, and I've found devout Christian conservatives easier to connect with than secular conservatives. Also, the most devout Christians that I know are mostly non-white - notably Latino Catholics, black Congregationalists, and Korean Presbyterians. Even among conservative white Christians, most of the ones I know considered all ethnicities to be united under God, and deliberately sought out united effort with other ethnicities.
The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.

With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!"  Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 30, 2022, 08:38:07 PM
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective.

Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good). What type of politics isn't corrupt, and what type isn't ineffective? Because whatever your party, it sure seems like corrupt and ineffective come with it. I don't see how this is specific to "American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety." I mean you could have replaced that "Libertarian" or "Socialist" or "Progressive" or whatever and I think it would remain accurate. Government power inherently comes with corruption and ineffectiveness.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 30, 2022, 08:41:58 PM
Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though.  Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone.  It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will. 

Oh look, the actual fucking racist also supports an authoritarian dictatorship. Gosh, where have we seen this story before? I am waiting for the "Jews secretly plot to control the banking and entertainment and global politics" take.

Edit:

Ah shit, it was literally just a few more posts!


The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.

With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!"  Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.

Yup, there it is. Alathon is a white nationalist fucker.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 30, 2022, 09:38:45 PM
Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though.  Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone.  It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will. 

Oh look, the actual fucking racist also supports an authoritarian dictatorship. Gosh, where have we seen this story before? I am waiting for the "Jews secretly plot to control the banking and entertainment and global politics" take.

Edit:

Ah shit, it was literally just a few more posts!


The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.

With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!"  Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.

Yup, there it is. Alathon is a white nationalist fucker.
I'll have you know that I am celibate!

As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world.  See where that gets you.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Daztur on December 30, 2022, 10:13:53 PM
I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans

This thread is chock full of calls to violence against our fellow Americans and nobody (except non-conservatives like jhkim) has been pushing back against them at all until I specifically prompted you. This leads me to think that many people on this thread (not including you, as I have no reason to distrust you) do not disagree with calls to violence against our fellow Americans due to the rather obvious fact that they are not disagreeing with the numerous calls to violence that have filled this thread.

Quote
I feel like rational and measured discourse would indeed help temper society against government infringement on civil liberties and the like as well as promote various other goals and policies.

I do enjoy rational and measured discourse myself and find it disappointing that it seems impossible for many people to discuss issues without strident calls for violence.

Quote
For there to be reconciliation there needs first and foremost to be good faith discourse with an attempt towards solid reasoning and expression, not a focus on the promotion or delineation of specific dogma, however ostensibly valid or well meaning it may seem to me.

Many people find it hard to engage in good faith discourse with people who either publicly proclaim they'd like to see them dead (such as SHARK and several other posters on this thread) or people who seem to have no problem with such unhinged bloodlust (just about everyone else on this thread). I'm sure you can see the reasons for this.

Quote
I think the arguments of the left dominate a lot of the media and society, leading to ostracism and silencing of many dissenting opinions, especially within a younger generation that seems less tolerant and willing to engage in discussion with those of differing opinions. The right has its own versions of cancel culture, and UNLISTENING extremism, that are also an issue, but in the future seem unlikely to remain an any way dominant under the crushing weight of demographic shifts. I think everyone would need to discuss and open the pathways of communication soon if America is to reconcile with itself, because we are indeed becoming more and more isolated in our own polarizing bubbles and echo chambers.

This is a real Matthew 7:3 moment (Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?). This thread is full of SHARK and the likes calling for the streets to run red with blood and everyone shrugs or cheers them on. Meanwhile people are incensed about social ostracism. The utter hypocrisy of this would be hilarious if it wasn't so unnerving.

Luckily 99% of the people who talk about all of the bloodletting they'd like to see on the internet are far too cowardly to actually do anything and the remaining 1% are too stupid and uncoordinated to accomplish much, so I hope that the threat isn't as large as it can appear. If I'm wrong, well, the first thing I'm doing if I ever move back to the US is getting a gun for self defense.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: KindaMeh on December 30, 2022, 11:05:05 PM
I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans

This thread is chock full of calls to violence against our fellow Americans and nobody (except non-conservatives like jhkim) has been pushing back against them at all until I specifically prompted you. This leads me to think that many people on this thread (not including you, as I have no reason to distrust you) do not disagree with calls to violence against our fellow Americans due to the rather obvious fact that they are not disagreeing with the numerous calls to violence that have filled this thread.

Quote
I feel like rational and measured discourse would indeed help temper society against government infringement on civil liberties and the like as well as promote various other goals and policies.

I do enjoy rational and measured discourse myself and find it disappointing that it seems impossible for many people to discuss issues without strident calls for violence.

Quote
For there to be reconciliation there needs first and foremost to be good faith discourse with an attempt towards solid reasoning and expression, not a focus on the promotion or delineation of specific dogma, however ostensibly valid or well meaning it may seem to me.

Many people find it hard to engage in good faith discourse with people who either publicly proclaim they'd like to see them dead (such as SHARK and several other posters on this thread) or people who seem to have no problem with such unhinged bloodlust (just about everyone else on this thread). I'm sure you can see the reasons for this.

Quote
I think the arguments of the left dominate a lot of the media and society, leading to ostracism and silencing of many dissenting opinions, especially within a younger generation that seems less tolerant and willing to engage in discussion with those of differing opinions. The right has its own versions of cancel culture, and UNLISTENING extremism, that are also an issue, but in the future seem unlikely to remain an any way dominant under the crushing weight of demographic shifts. I think everyone would need to discuss and open the pathways of communication soon if America is to reconcile with itself, because we are indeed becoming more and more isolated in our own polarizing bubbles and echo chambers.

This is a real Matthew 7:3 moment (Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?). This thread is full of SHARK and the likes calling for the streets to run red with blood and everyone shrugs or cheers them on. Meanwhile people are incensed about social ostracism. The utter hypocrisy of this would be hilarious if it wasn't so unnerving.

Luckily 99% of the people to talk about all of the bloodletting they'd like to see on the internet are far too cowardly to actually do anything and the remaining 1% are too stupid and uncoordinated to accomplish much, so I hope that the threat isn't as large as it can appear. If I'm wrong, well, the first thing I'm doing if I ever move back to the US is getting a gun for self defense.

For your first section, sampling bias and the bystander effect presumably would be in play even if we assume you are right about the entire thread. (I didn’t see anything immediately prior to where I was first posting, and have not read the whole thread. Also, Mistwell and more than a few other folks with some conservative opinions on this thread pushed reconciliation and/or convincement over violence even in the segments that I read.) I’m not presently convinced everyone or even a majority are pro-violence either on here or in real life (trust me, were the latter true, we’d know).

For the second point, if people on the right were actually credibly threatening imminent violence, much less to people who try to talk to them in good faith, they’d probably be locked up and/or sued. I am sorry to hear you seem to genuinely believe most conservatives are at all like that, but would advise you revise your opinion on that. Do you believe most BLM protesters or Antifa are violent just because the most commonly publicized negative incidents with them are? No? Then why not extend that benefit of the doubt to roughly half America, with majorities in many states?

To be clear, I actively noted that cancel culture was a problem in post one, then further clarified that it and unlistening extremism exist on the right as well, which I had assumed people would have intuited anyway. Those are barriers to discourse and reconciliation, yes. They are a problem, yes. On both sides of the political spectrum. Splinters or logs, it’s better not to have them in your eyes, and I don’t consider it wrong to say as much. But in the end, to once again clarify, I feel demographic shifts will give the left a majority that does not need to compromise, during the reign of a generation that has statistically been less likely to want to do so, and more likely to want to try authoritarian government weaponization measures and the like on both sides. So I feel like if reconciliation doesn’t take place now when both sides have something to offer, it’s gonna be bad down the road. Still, both are screwing the pooch in some ways at the moment, sure.

Also, if you think 99% of people posting that kinda stuff don’t really want to do it, and most who would want to won’t, maybe you should reconsider claiming that most on the right are violent extremists. Do those exist? Sure. On both sides of the political spectrum. And in both instances deserve to be called out on unlawful conduct and prosecuted. But that is also no valid excuse to claim as some do that lamenting the downfall of free speech, open discourse, and a lack of corporate and societal censorship and targeting is pointless. I think reconciliation will require effort from both sides, and an attempt on both sides to combat that sort of thing, but also those are all nothing to sneeze at and in my understanding tend to lean left fairly often. So those on the right of center will especially need to make themselves seem reasonable and not how for instance you seem to perceive them, while also being honest and not censoring themselves. I think the right especially has an image problem, hence why I said they need to discuss things well.

I think at the end of the day we both want discussion in good faith. Also, we all have to live with our fellow Americans regardless of political thought. We could be doing more, and I think that means suffering through discomfort and cetera both with people we know and people we don’t. Trying our best not to paint folks in the worst possible light and giving the benefit of the doubt even when we may not love engaging with someone.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2022, 12:22:37 AM
I personally disagree quite firmly with calls to violence against our fellow Americans

This thread is chock full of calls to violence against our fellow Americans and nobody (except non-conservatives like jhkim) has been pushing back against them at all until I specifically prompted you. This leads me to think that many people on this thread (not including you, as I have no reason to distrust you) do not disagree with calls to violence against our fellow Americans due to the rather obvious fact that they are not disagreeing with the numerous calls to violence that have filled this thread.

You're welcome to draw whatever conclusions you like. I think that's an assinine attempt to try and drag others into your arguments.

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 31, 2022, 12:47:40 AM
Such sloth and indifference does open some interesting doors, though.  Serfs like this will submit to just about anyone.  It could be that all the talk about hangings is arising from a growing awareness that a small segment of the population, willing to fight, could dominate the rest and enforce their will. 

Oh look, the actual fucking racist also supports an authoritarian dictatorship. Gosh, where have we seen this story before? I am waiting for the "Jews secretly plot to control the banking and entertainment and global politics" take.

Edit:

Ah shit, it was literally just a few more posts!


The "neo-con" movement is notorious for its over-representation of jews, its suspiciously large media footprint, and for waging wars that were ruinous for America, ruinous for our victims, ruinous for middle-eastern Christian communities that were more than a thousand years old... but quite beneficial for the current occupational forces in Palestine.

With your overt advocacy of sodomite pride, I dare say you have few devout Christians in alliance with you, no matter how many cry "Lord, Lord!"  Christ was very clear with us that it would be better we were drowned than that we set stumbling blocks in front of children.

Yup, there it is. Alathon is a white nationalist fucker.
I'll have you know that I am celibate!

As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world.  See where that gets you.

Go ahead and answer the accusation. Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people? Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people? Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry? Come on you cowardly little fucking white nationalist, answer the questions.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: KindaMeh on December 31, 2022, 01:06:02 AM
Hey, Alathon. Long time no see. Welcome back. This is one of those odd overlaps.

From previous conversations, I know that you had been opposed to ethnic mixing. That's what I would guess is meant by the "adulteration" from varied types of pussy. We disagree about this.

That said, I also oppose how the U.S. posts its armed forces all over the world and constantly intervenes in foreign conflicts. I would favor far less foreign military entanglements than the U.S. has historically had, though there are still some wars that I think were justified.

Thank you for your kind words.

Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of.  Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage.  Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.

The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities.  Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women.  The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't.  Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it.  Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.

It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities.  This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen.  It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit.  Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.

I think he's pretty clearly a racist bigot with the whole no ethnic intermixing thing. Also seems to probably be a sexist and  also antisemitic conspiracy theorist from what he says here about the women who serve our nation and given his whole “Jews control the media/banks/the Republican Party” thing found both here and elsewhere… Like for real, in the actual definitional sense and basic meanings of those words, not the false accusational sense.

Edit: I don’t think we’re likely to change his mind on those things, but props to jhkim for trying.



Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 31, 2022, 01:46:19 AM
Greetings!

Well, personally, for now, I don't need to get violent with anyone. I live in an area that is firmly dominated by strong, good Americans that believe as I do. REAL AMERICANS. Not cock-sucking, Globalist-Woke Libtards thoroughly brainfucked by Marxism.

I certainly believe in being diligent, wise, and prepared. Our country is being overthrown by fucking Marxist jackass tyrants that have turned our society into clownworld and a fucking cesspool of degenerates. Our society is absolutely full of weak, feminized, zombies that are all eager--EAGER!--to bow down and be good little pussy slaves to a globalist, Marxist elite.

Well, that isn't me. For all the fucking sheep that love being slaves, love woke Marxism, and can't get enough of the fucking Kool-Aid, the country is being transformed into a Marxist, dystopian, racist, Libtard shithole. As I commented earlier, it is what it is. Perhaps a few may wake the fuck up to the danger--but, honestly, that is most likely a dynamic of too little, too late.

As for right-thinking Americans, indeed, more and more REAL AMERICANS need to become alert to the very real dangers of the woke fucking Marxists, and do everything they can to resist. The fucking groomers, the feminists, the racists, the Marxist tyrants, a grab-bag of absolutely disgusting degenerates are actively corrupting our society at a breakneck pace. Lots of bureaucrats and government officials are working diligently to further promote the degenerate corruption of our country, many of which have been entirely corrupted by Chinese Communist money and influence--while fucking sweet little Chinese Intelligence agents like Fang Fang.

Good Americans need to resist the evil degenerates that are corrupting our country with Marxism. Time is quickly running out. The hourglass of our great nation is quickly running empty, and there isn't much time, opportunity, or momentum left to change course and prevent the country from being driven over the cliff into the abyss.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on December 31, 2022, 06:07:04 AM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Alathon on December 31, 2022, 09:19:41 AM
I'll have you know that I am celibate!

As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world.  See where that gets you.

Go ahead and answer the accusation. Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people? Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people? Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry? Come on you cowardly little fucking white nationalist, answer the questions.
I thought I was quite clear the first time, but I'll gladly spell it out.

1.  Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people?
Is? No.  Should be? Yes.

2.  Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people?
With Blacks, Africans, Aborigines, Mestizos, and semites, yes.  It's marrying down in every way that truly matters.  I guess some of it is eugenic, to judge by the sort of white women typically seen with mulatto babies, but it's still sad.

With the northern Asian peoples, it's more like marrying sideways, so it's a judgement call.  Some limited amount of intermarriage can be healthy, as a hedge against consanguinity and to acquire beneficial genetic mutations.  Couples should consider seriously the cultural challenges they take on by having two very different family trees to work with and sometimes appease.

For others (Inuit, Amerindian, south-Asian, Persian, etc..) judgement call, but they are not peers in achievement or intellect.

3.  Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry?
No, there's nothing secret about it.  AIPAC operates openly.  The ADL operates openly.  America's warmongering in the middle east, and the deplatforming of those who criticize jews, have not been secret.


Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 31, 2022, 11:13:44 AM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

I've said that many time here before. That you missed it is funny.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Chris24601 on December 31, 2022, 11:37:57 AM
There’s a difference between predicting violence and calling for it.

I make no calls for violence, but as a student of history I can see all the signs it’s coming because our politicians are putting all sorts of pressure on ordinary Americans with their idiot policies and excessive spending. Pressure builds heat and unless something is done to reduce the pressure and resultant heat, it’s just a matter of time until it explodes.

As to this racism nonsense. All evidence is that there’s very little genetic differences in the human population relative to other species. As such, I attribute differences in outcome to environmental factors (malnutrition is a bitch when it comes to cognitive development, permisive parenting often leads to behavioral issues; guess what modern welfare programs both encourage?). These sort of environmental factors can cause lifelong damage to individuals and can be pervasive in the situations various ethnic groups find themselves in.

As to anti-Semitic nonsense; there are a number of bad actors (ex. George Soros) who happen to be Jewish and like to use claim of antisemitism as a shield against those who criticize or seek to oppose their nefarious actions (ex. Soros has already collapsed several national economies for his own gain, that has nothing to do with his ethnicity and everything to do with him being a greedy sociopathic bastard).

My standard is that ethnicity shouldn’t be a shield against criminal actions. If a WASP or any other “oppressor” ethnicity did what these people do, they’d be regarded as abhorrent. “I’m Jewish” shouldn’t make it morally acceptable, particularly when there are millions upon millions of counter-examples of Jews who do nothing but improve the lives of those around them (and the same goes for every other ethnicity out there… the vast majority of the human population just wants to raise their families in peace and help their neighbors when they can; that a small fraction of people happen to be sociopaths who ruin other people’s lives for their own gain reflects on no one but the people who choose to engage in those acts).
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 31, 2022, 11:59:52 AM
The problem with American conservatism, especially of the neocon variety, is that it is globalist, corrupt, and ineffective.
1. ... We have to remember that it was the neocons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan --both were total disasters--this needs to stop.

2. The GOP is always ready to give corporate welfare out (as are the Dems), but heaven forbid we get healthcare spending under control, or give Americans access to some kind of national health insurance. I am self-employed, and my health insurance premium is more than my mortgage and my property taxes combined. And I am on a bronze plan! That is just insane. There is a middle-way here

These seem like points of potential dialog - if not the "reconciliation" of the title.

I and many other liberals have been vocal about the problems of the military-industrial complex and the problems of U.S. constant military interventions - especially since Vietnam in the 1960s. We might disagree about some specifics, but we could agree on principles and generally reducing military spending. I've mentioned here before that while I've been opposed to over 90% of U.S. wars. Even though there are a handful of wars I supported, lets not let 90% agreement be the enemy of perfect alignment.

Also, national health insurance is something many Democrats have backed - but it has always been shot down, and any mention of reducing healthcare spending gets targeted as "death panels".


Believe it or not, while racial adulteration of the U.S. armed forces is a serious problem, it is not the problem I speak of.  Most of that comes in the form of Hispanic recruits who do not, so far as I have heard, lack courage.  Sooner or later we will get what Emperor Valens got for Rome, but that's not our worst problem.

The 'pussy' I speak of comes in the form of political hires who are liabilities.  Careerist REMFs, perverts, and women.  The women are the worst of the lot, because at least the careerists and perverts are theoretically capable of fulfilling their obligations, whereas a population of women just plain can't.  Standards must be greatly lowered to allow them to participate and advance, which they now consider some sort of right, and weak males permit it.  Enemy soldiers will not lower their own standards to allow for pussyfeelz.

It is worth noting that most of the women in the U.S. armed forces come out of conservative communities.  This is a great way to turn them into harlots or corpses, but conservatives have not only allowed it but helped make it happen.  It's one more mountain of evidence that conservatives won't conserve shit.  Under the Republican umbrella, devout Christians and NRA-funding gun owners do most of the real work, while the "compassionate conservatives", moderates, and judeo-cons pour the wealth of our empire into obsolete war machines and feckless warmongering.

By "judeo-cons" do you mean Jewish conservatives? I wasn't familiar with that term.

Given the role of religion in what you say, I'm curious what role you think religion plays in this? What denomination do you favor?

My parents both came from deeply religious Christian families, and I've found devout Christian conservatives easier to connect with than secular conservatives. Also, the most devout Christians that I know are mostly non-white - notably Latino Catholics, black Congregationalists, and Korean Presbyterians. Even among conservative white Christians, most of the ones I know considered all ethnicities to be united under God, and deliberately sought out united effort with other ethnicities.

I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum

Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:

1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example. But I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?

a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.

b) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.

c) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.

So I think there can be agreement here for sure, but we have to approach the problem logically

It is possible to come to agreements on other issues as well. I see people on the left complaining about endless foreign wars, interventions, etc. just as I see Tucker Carlson complaining about it.

But our biggest problem is all the Clown World nonsense that is going on in this country right now. The Transgenderism, postmodern nonsense in the universities, identity politics, etc.

We can't have open, honest, and meaningful debate with people who think:

1. Men can have babies
2. That biological sex is "non-binary"
3. That language and truth are meaningless
4. That government-sanctioned systemic racism still exists in the US, and that it is impossible to change it without full-blown revolution and violence
5. That pederasty is OK, because "love is love"!

etc.

You can't have agreements with crazy people. And the political parties in this country need to stop pandering to the crazy people. There is a profound level of ignorance and irrationality within our public sphere, and we are reminded of this daily. Example:

Story comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.

But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2022, 01:19:17 PM
I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum

Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:

1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example.

I mildly agree. I don't agree that they must be provided by the state, but they can be. And the state may be the best way to accomplish this, but it's picking amongst options that all have their drawbacks.

Quote
But I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?

a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.

All issues that exist with a public system. America's hybrid system is a good example of that.

Quote
b) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.

A state run health system would not have mitigated this without other issues, like China's response to Covid, turning public health issues into an authoritarian nightmare of people welded into boxes and locked into apartments for the "greater good".

Covid is a glaring and relevant example of how the state killed people and illustrated that "the experts" are all idiots who will lie rather than actually help people.

Quote
c) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.

Not even in theory. Even touted european public health care systems have their issues, loopholes, and people falling through the cracks. Corruption and abuse. Officials cooking the books to cover their asses. You'll be trading one set of issues for another, and very likely just pulling even in net good.

Quote
Story comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.

But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.

These are the assholes who would be in charge of an expanded public health care system.

Personally, I think we should have a public option for those who cannot afford private health care, but be aware that there are perverse incentives and people who will try to expand that public option to try and crush private health care and create a government monopoly on health care. One that they control and profit from, instead of those "filthy capitalists".
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 31, 2022, 01:42:50 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 31, 2022, 01:48:51 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...

Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 31, 2022, 02:01:21 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...

Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.

I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: KindaMeh on December 31, 2022, 02:11:32 PM

But our biggest problem is all the Clown World nonsense that is going on in this country right now. The Transgenderism, postmodern nonsense in the universities, identity politics, etc.

We can't have open, honest, and meaningful debate with people who think:

1. Men can have babies
2. That biological sex is "non-binary"
3. That language and truth are meaningless
4. That government-sanctioned systemic racism still exists in the US, and that it is impossible to change it without full-blown revolution and violence
5. That pederasty is OK, because "love is love"!

etc.

You can't have agreements with crazy people. And the political parties in this country need to stop pandering to the crazy people. There is a profound level of ignorance and irrationality within our public sphere, and we are reminded of this daily.

These are the kinds of people who, if nobody talks them out of their positions, will likely end up leading the US to its doom when Gen Z takes the reigns and neither wants nor needs to compromise. (Except 5, hopefully. I don’t think 5 is at all common, thankfully, thanks to all the consent pushing and cetera, and anybody openly spouting that position is going to get their ass handed to them by society for now even within Gen Z. Also if we include pretty uncommon genetics like XXY or whatever rather than typical phenotype, 2 is sensible when not taken outside that context, as it all too often is.)

Many of these folks come out of schools, internet sites and universities having only ever been properly exposed to one side of the story. But also, partly as a result of how poorly considered many of their positions are, they can totally be debated with, much thought they’d often love to make that not the case when they get power. I’d argue that we need to make progress with convincing them now that it’s a terrible idea. Because so long as free speech and dialogue survive, I am confident that truth will have at least something of an edge. It seems likely to me that if a shift back to honest and open discussions does not take place, America is screwed when folks like this get the majority, which without unregulated and solid dialogue they will.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: RPGPundit on December 31, 2022, 02:13:11 PM
I'll have you know that I am celibate!

As for the rest, by all means keep white-knighting the Epsteins, Weinsteins, and Bankman-Frieds of the world.  See where that gets you.

Go ahead and answer the accusation. Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people? Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people? Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry? Come on you cowardly little fucking white nationalist, answer the questions.
I thought I was quite clear the first time, but I'll gladly spell it out.

1.  Do you think America is and should be a nation led by white people for white people?
Is? No.  Should be? Yes.

2.  Do you think it's wrong for white people to have children with non-white people?
With Blacks, Africans, Aborigines, Mestizos, and semites, yes.  It's marrying down in every way that truly matters.  I guess some of it is eugenic, to judge by the sort of white women typically seen with mulatto babies, but it's still sad.

With the northern Asian peoples, it's more like marrying sideways, so it's a judgement call.  Some limited amount of intermarriage can be healthy, as a hedge against consanguinity and to acquire beneficial genetic mutations.  Couples should consider seriously the cultural challenges they take on by having two very different family trees to work with and sometimes appease.

For others (Inuit, Amerindian, south-Asian, Persian, etc..) judgement call, but they are not peers in achievement or intellect.

3.  Do you think Jews secretly conspire to cause America to go to war, while controlling the finance and entertainment industry?
No, there's nothing secret about it.  AIPAC operates openly.  The ADL operates openly.  America's warmongering in the middle east, and the deplatforming of those who criticize jews, have not been secret.

Thank you for outing yourself as part of the Collectivist Retard White Power Brigade. You have won Never Being On This Site Again!
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 31, 2022, 02:18:33 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...

Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.

I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.

You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.

I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.

If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it.  But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic). 

TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: RPGPundit on December 31, 2022, 02:21:30 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...

Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.

I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.

You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.

I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.

If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it.  But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic). 

TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?

So you're claiming that you ONLY hire American Citizens?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: 3catcircus on December 31, 2022, 02:31:04 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...

Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.

I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.

You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.

I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.

If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it.  But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic). 

TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?

You really don't get that your overreaction to my observation is *exactly* why we're never going to have a kumbaya reconciliation as a nation? Which *is* the point of the topic.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: KindaMeh on December 31, 2022, 02:42:58 PM
I mean, I dunno jack about Mistwell’s business or who he employs, but it’d pretty clearly be an absurd personal attack to accuse somebody of running their business as a sweatshop with illegal Central American slave labor. Which is why I at first thought was a joke, though I am still kind of unsure about it. And it was indeed off topic, sure, I do that too. Both those things (especially the first) aren’t grounds for immediate thread banning or whatever as I understand it, but they aren’t great for conversation either. I do think maybe we should all take a breath and move back to the discussion and try to argue in good faith about the topic in question. Cuz I do think that at least is possible both here and as a nation, even if we’re never all gonna agree 100%.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 31, 2022, 03:50:34 PM
Let's leave aside the globalism part (I agree with you - and I believe globalism is a net good).

Suddenly it all becomes clear, Misty is a globalist cunt. No wonder you agree with everything the estabishment is doing.

Forget everything else you claim to believe, this is the only thing that matters.

Of course he's a globalist - he runs CA's version of the Triangle Shirtwaist Co.  His sweatshop full of sewing machines isn't going to staff itself.  He's gotta keep bringing in Central American slave labor...

Dude, it is not OK for you to make personal attacks on my personal business (which are slanderous and false) because you disagree with my general politics. Take it back a notch please. You know we can discuss these topics without you making it about my private life (which was not raised as a topic in this thread in any way and which you know very little about apparently), so let's do that instead of you doing literally one of the only things which can get you banned around here.

I did not state your name or the name of your business - it's not a personal attack. It's an observation regarding *your* statement that globalism is a good thing where you provided zero context on why you would think it is a good thing. To anyone who works for a living (in pretty much *every* country on earth), globalism is a cancer.

You made a claim that I run a sweatshop and import slave labor from central America - which is absurdly false and fabricated by you and shows you don't even follow what I have said publicly here about my business. In a topic which had ZERO to do with that and which was not raised by me or anyone else. Do not fucking claim that was not a personal attack. You made up something untrue directly about my personal life because you disagreed with my general politics.

I've provided lots of context about my globalism views. I've publicly had this discussion, at length, on this forum in this very section of the forum. Apparently you missed it but it's not like I've withheld my views on that or didn't put a lot of effort into discussing a lot of aspects of that topic. Which this particular thread IS NOT ABOUT and you're ranting about literally a side comment made in parenthesis.

If you want to join that discussion you can - in the thread we were talking about it.  But you're derailing this conversation, and doing it in a particularly personal and pernicious way. There are people who know who I am in my private life and it is not OK for you to make up slanderous claims about my business because you're pouty I disagree with you about a very general political topic which was a side comment on this thread. Much like I know about some of your private life from CM but I don't haul it out here and make a fabricated personal attack against your profession and business because I disagree with you on some general topic (because your private life is your private life unless you make it public here in a topic). 

TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. Are you really unsatisfied with just calling me names that you have to make shit up about my business?

So you're claiming that you ONLY hire American Citizens?

No not at all and I never claimed that. My wife is a Canadian citizen who is a legal resident here. I hire some people who are just legal residents aliens with a valid green card. In fact I've helped a half dozen become American citizens while working for us, who started out as legal residents but not US citizens (and they all vote Republican thanks to my father's influence - despite my attempts to moderate that). I'd say probably 2/3rds to 3/4ths are US citizens, the rest legal residents with a green card, but I have not counted lately. As long as they're here legally, have the right paperwork, pass the checks, and have their social security and proper taxes taken out, I am not too concerned if they're a citizen or just legal resident.

I don't hire illegal aliens. And I certainly don't run a sweatshop or pay slave wages! Most of the low end stuff people are talking about I import - which is fair for discussion and I've discussed it elsewhere. But the stuff my business makes here in the US is high end and custom, often with specifications to a customers needs. It requires skilled labor and sometimes higher end machinery, and that skilled labor is hard to find and doesn't come cheap. We also use equipment like a robotic cutting machine and embroidery machines and some other more obscure somewhat-complicated equipment. We give people fair pay in good working conditions in a great fully-airconditioned nice building (even the warehouse is air conditioned) with amenities and some benefits. We just had a very nice catered Christmas party.

I do all that because it's the right thing to do, and it's better for me to work in a place where people are happy. BUT it's not like I could do a whole lot less than that as the marketplace of employment demands it. I am living in a city where the minimum wage is about $34,000 a year. Why would anyone with skills work in bad working conditions and at slave wages when literally washing dishes would pay you that?

And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on December 31, 2022, 04:58:07 PM
Greetings!

Reconciliation between two groups that have entirely different cultures and world views is a fool's errand, and essentially impossible. The differences are not merely political, as some people seem to want to believe. It isn't just a different political flavour or approach to solving some kind o problem. It is an entirely different view o religion, o personal rights, business, social rules and expectations, sexuality, parent's rights and authority, how children are viewed, how schools are to operate with children, taxation, government bureaucracy and power, and on and on.

These many, continuous an fundamental differences are unbridgeable. There is no "compromise" between those people that believe that children are sacred, special, and should be cherished and raised properly--and the fucking degenerates that believe in fucking kids and all the scum that think it's just great to pump degenerate sexualized propaganda and corruption into children, and totally morally corrupt them.

These differences have some connections in the past--but the more genuine differences have developed from the Libtard's mass embrace of woke Marxist and Feminist ideology in recent years.

These more recent developments have thus required true Americans t re-evaluate their relationships and how they think, believe, and operate. As the Marxists have strengthened their grip and influence throughout society, creating more corruption and degeneracy, good Americans need to resist more, and their response needs to become increasingly stronger.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 31, 2022, 07:05:34 PM
I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum

Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:

1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example.

I mildly agree. I don't agree that they must be provided by the state, but they can be. And the state may be the best way to accomplish this, but it's picking amongst options that all have their drawbacks.

Quote
But I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?

a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.

All issues that exist with a public system. America's hybrid system is a good example of that.

Quote
b) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.

A state run health system would not have mitigated this without other issues, like China's response to Covid, turning public health issues into an authoritarian nightmare of people welded into boxes and locked into apartments for the "greater good".

Covid is a glaring and relevant example of how the state killed people and illustrated that "the experts" are all idiots who will lie rather than actually help people.

Quote
c) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.

Not even in theory. Even touted european public health care systems have their issues, loopholes, and people falling through the cracks. Corruption and abuse. Officials cooking the books to cover their asses. You'll be trading one set of issues for another, and very likely just pulling even in net good.

Quote
Story comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.

But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.

These are the assholes who would be in charge of an expanded public health care system.

Personally, I think we should have a public option for those who cannot afford private health care, but be aware that there are perverse incentives and people who will try to expand that public option to try and crush private health care and create a government monopoly on health care. One that they control and profit from, instead of those "filthy capitalists".

I am not arguing for a NHS or full-blown socialized medicine. Not even a Canadian system, but rather something that looks like the German hybrid healthcare system.

Dude: I have heard all the arguments you have put forward before, and they amount to saying everything is fine with the house, except for the fact the entire thing is on fire and about to collapse. Our healthcare system is absolute trash, and no, it isn't all because of the private sector, it is also because of issues within the public.

Even with our mostly private system, the government still locked people down during COVID, assumed emergency powers (the governor of Illinois still has them), issued vaccine passports in places like New York, while big pharma worked with government officials and the media to push false narratives. It was the worst of both worlds.

A national health insurance should be available to anyone who needs it, but private policies can also be purchased (like in Germany). There will be a cost for the public option, but it won't be outrageous. I pay $2100 a month for my health plan with $30,000 in annual deductibles (family of 4) --that is fuc*ing immoral. A system like this cannot survive.

there are always going to be trade-offs and sacrifices, but we have to get away from this dogmatic thinking that the government shouldn't be involved with anything --the private health insurance companies have raped the public for decades. This needs to be fixed
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MerrillWeathermay on December 31, 2022, 07:20:04 PM
Greetings!

Reconciliation between two groups that have entirely different cultures and world views is a fool's errand, and essentially impossible. The differences are not merely political, as some people seem to want to believe. It isn't just a different political flavour or approach to solving some kind o problem. It is an entirely different view o religion, o personal rights, business, social rules and expectations, sexuality, parent's rights and authority, how children are viewed, how schools are to operate with children, taxation, government bureaucracy and power, and on and on.

These many, continuous an fundamental differences are unbridgeable. There is no "compromise" between those people that believe that children are sacred, special, and should be cherished and raised properly--and the fucking degenerates that believe in fucking kids and all the scum that think it's just great to pump degenerate sexualized propaganda and corruption into children, and totally morally corrupt them.

These differences have some connections in the past--but the more genuine differences have developed from the Libtard's mass embrace of woke Marxist and Feminist ideology in recent years.

These more recent developments have thus required true Americans t re-evaluate their relationships and how they think, believe, and operate. As the Marxists have strengthened their grip and influence throughout society, creating more corruption and degeneracy, good Americans need to resist more, and their response needs to become increasingly stronger.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There isn't any possible reconciliation or understanding between the radical. We need to find the people who are sensible, ethical, and logical (at least to some degree), and pull them away from the crazies. Some examples:

Bill Maher: I disagree with Bill on a lot of stuff, but he isn't crazy, and he does have a moral compass. He understands that the political left has gone off-the-rails, and has been calling for sanity.
Sam Harris: As with Harris, I disagree with Sam on a lot of stuff, and he can say things that piss me off. However, Sam does take a logical and systematic approach to things, and is willing to change his mind when the evidence demands it. He is not ideological, but rather pragmatic.
Andrew Yang: left-of-center, but logical and pragmatic. Guided by ethics and an honest desire to help people. Isn't afraid of telling people what they don't wan to hear. I disagree with Andrew on some stuff, but I think he is a good guy.

And then there are people like Ibram X Kendi, AOC, Randi Weingarten, etc. who are crazy. They have distorted and ignorant worldviews, and are without any kind of moral compass.They will say or do whatever is necessary to elevate their position and destroy their perceived enemies. They are cynical liars--and don't deserve debate or even consideration.

so I think it is all about reaching out to the reasonable people
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on December 31, 2022, 08:51:38 PM
I am not arguing for a NHS or full-blown socialized medicine. Not even a Canadian system, but rather something that looks like the German hybrid healthcare system.

I am curious. What does the German hybrid system look like? I know nothing about it and had not heard that brought up before. I'm cool just Googling in but if you know something about it I'd be happy to hear a summary.

I think our healthcare system is a mess, and was made worse by Obamacare (though it was never good). The whole "you can keep your health insurance" was a lie - I could not. I was told I had to buy new health insurance, which covered less and cost more. And I was pissed about it. And my left-wing friends had no sympathy, and just kept repeating that more people had health insurance now and that was a small price to pay. As all of them enjoyed health insurance paid for by their employer (sometimes the Government or a University) and they paid no price
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2022, 11:50:00 PM
I have never been dogmatic with my politics, and tend to be eclectic and a bit technocratic. This has made me enemies on both sides of the spectrum

Here is one angle I take when trying to reach an agreement or consensus among people of different political and ideological persuasions:

1. Can we agree that there are things we could call "public good" --those things that are necessary for the functioning of society, and which cannot be provided by the private sector alone. Those things that must be supported by the public (aka taxes, etc.)? National defense is a good example.

I mildly agree. I don't agree that they must be provided by the state, but they can be. And the state may be the best way to accomplish this, but it's picking amongst options that all have their drawbacks.

Quote
But I would also put healthcare into this category. Why?

a) The private sector has failed for decades to provide effective healthcare at a reasonable cost. There are many reasons for this, but there is the profit motive, lack of pricing transparency, high malpractice insurance costs, regulation, etc. We can talk all day about why the system is broken, but all the math leads to the same solution--it is hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot be fixed without a total overhaul.

All issues that exist with a public system. America's hybrid system is a good example of that.

Quote
b) A healthy population with access to healthcare is a public good. Many years ago, a dude with TB got into a train I was on and proceeded to infect me and several others with the disease. I spent 9 months on antibiotics and physical therapy. That guy had no health insurance and minimal access to care--and his problem became everyone's problem.

A state run health system would not have mitigated this without other issues, like China's response to Covid, turning public health issues into an authoritarian nightmare of people welded into boxes and locked into apartments for the "greater good".

Covid is a glaring and relevant example of how the state killed people and illustrated that "the experts" are all idiots who will lie rather than actually help people.

Quote
c) We can have a national health insurance that covers everyone, but everyone has to pay into it. A VAT or national sales tax, and some increases in income taxes will be required. I am happy to pay it. The idea that taxing the 1% is going to give everyone healthcare is nonsense. It is hugely expensive.

Not even in theory. Even touted european public health care systems have their issues, loopholes, and people falling through the cracks. Corruption and abuse. Officials cooking the books to cover their asses. You'll be trading one set of issues for another, and very likely just pulling even in net good.

Quote
Story comes out a couple days ago that the US will start demanding COVID tests for people coming here from China, and quarantining those who fail.

But the virus has been here for 3 years and like 95% of our population has been infected. How does this make any sense at all? When we have this level of stupid in our government, we have really big problems. Or claims that spending additional trillions of dollars will *lower* inflation (total nonsense), or that eliminating cash bail will *lower* crime (totally illogical) --I could go on and on.

These are the assholes who would be in charge of an expanded public health care system.

Personally, I think we should have a public option for those who cannot afford private health care, but be aware that there are perverse incentives and people who will try to expand that public option to try and crush private health care and create a government monopoly on health care. One that they control and profit from, instead of those "filthy capitalists".

I am not arguing for a NHS or full-blown socialized medicine. Not even a Canadian system, but rather something that looks like the German hybrid healthcare system.

Dude: I have heard all the arguments you have put forward before, and they amount to saying everything is fine with the house, except for the fact the entire thing is on fire and about to collapse. Our healthcare system is absolute trash, and no, it isn't all because of the private sector, it is also because of issues within the public.

Even with our mostly private system, the government still locked people down during COVID, assumed emergency powers (the governor of Illinois still has them), issued vaccine passports in places like New York, while big pharma worked with government officials and the media to push false narratives. It was the worst of both worlds.

A national health insurance should be available to anyone who needs it, but private policies can also be purchased (like in Germany). There will be a cost for the public option, but it won't be outrageous. I pay $2100 a month for my health plan with $30,000 in annual deductibles (family of 4) --that is fuc*ing immoral. A system like this cannot survive.

there are always going to be trade-offs and sacrifices, but we have to get away from this dogmatic thinking that the government shouldn't be involved with anything --the private health insurance companies have raped the public for decades. This needs to be fixed

Well, I'm glad that's what I explicitly mentioned as not saying in the first sentence of my reply to you then.  ;)

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on January 01, 2023, 03:29:50 AM
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 01, 2023, 03:33:05 AM
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftists. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.

Alex P Keaton effect.

Happy New Year
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 01, 2023, 03:49:21 AM
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.

And I've noticed a lot of pushback from young people over the past few years against the insanity of the left. I suppose how much depends on your perspective.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on January 01, 2023, 03:57:19 AM
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.

And I've noticed a lot of pushback from young people over the past few years against the insanity of the left. I suppose how much depends on your perspective.
Very possible. That wasn’t the main point though. The point is, I don’t think you can subdivide the country that easily.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 01, 2023, 06:07:06 AM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 01, 2023, 12:09:20 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Zelen on January 01, 2023, 02:02:32 PM
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.

This is a Hollywood trope but the statistical evidence (insofar as you should trust anything that comes out of social science) does not align with this outcome.

Conservative parents raising kids in conservative ways generally tend to raise conservative children. The outside influence of (peer group / media environment) can lead children to be rebellious but the effect is reduced the more conservative/religious the parents. For example, among the Amish, fewer young adults who are going on Rumspringa are choosing to abandon their faith & lifestyle than in the past. It's the children of Lefty/Liberal parents who are more prone to radicalism.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Kiero on January 01, 2023, 03:06:07 PM
I've said that many time here before. That you missed it is funny.

I've never seen it, but now I know.

Contrary to those who wish to banish you to the Big Purple Arsehole, I want you to stay. You serve a valuable function, telling us what the Establishment swamp thinks.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 01, 2023, 03:45:31 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on January 01, 2023, 03:51:09 PM
Greetings!

I was thinking about some of this while having breakfast earlier.

The desire to be mature, nice, and reasonable.

The Liberals don't ask themselves that. They are not worried about being nice, mature, or reasonable.

They ask themselves how can we humiliate, bankrupt, and destroy our enemies? You see this throughout the Liberal sphere. Straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. By any means necessary.

These freaks and tyrants are the people in power. They are the nuts driving the train--not some nice, mature, reasonable people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on January 01, 2023, 04:21:01 PM
For those who think we’re talking about entirely different cultures; I have noticed that in America, there’s a strong tendency for hyper-conservative families to breed rebellious leftist kids. There’s a bit of the opposite too, but I have seen somewhat less of it.

This is a Hollywood trope but the statistical evidence (insofar as you should trust anything that comes out of social science) does not align with this outcome.

Conservative parents raising kids in conservative ways generally tend to raise conservative children. The outside influence of (peer group / media environment) can lead children to be rebellious but the effect is reduced the more conservative/religious the parents. For example, among the Amish, fewer young adults who are going on Rumspringa are choosing to abandon their faith & lifestyle than in the past. It's the children of Lefty/Liberal parents who are more prone to radicalism.

Don't know about Hollywood trope, nor have I looked into the statistics, but I have seen it several times in real life.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 01, 2023, 06:54:31 PM
I've said that many time here before. That you missed it is funny.

I've never seen it, but now I know.

Contrary to those who wish to banish you to the Big Purple Arsehole, I want you to stay. You serve a valuable function, telling us what the Establishment swamp thinks.

Hey you dumb insane fucker, I'm not a Big Purple poster and didn't come here from there.  I remember when Morrus handed this url over to Pundit, was here long before you arrived, and will likely be here still long after you move on to whatever conspiracy theory site that eventually absorbs your tiny brain into it's collective madness.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 01, 2023, 06:57:15 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on January 01, 2023, 06:59:42 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 01, 2023, 08:25:41 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

My Favorite Liberal Scratching Post will get mad and throw it out there.

See, he gets mad easily and then you actually get some truth out of him.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 01, 2023, 08:28:38 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

LOL because it's been discussed here, and with him, on more than one occasion?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 01, 2023, 08:30:49 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

My Favorite Liberal Scratching Post will get mad and throw it out there.

See, he gets mad easily and then you actually get some truth out of him.
I always tell you the truth Jeff. You just choose to disbelieve the things I say which make you uncomfortable

I'll give you a truth right now that will make you uncomfortable. Despite you disliking me, I still genuinely like you. Other than politics, we're not that dissimilar, and I appreciate your gaming knowledge and passion for gaming.

And I know you will think that's a lie to trick you. Because it makes you uncomfortable so it's just easier for you to think i'm lying. Though I'm not.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Trond on January 02, 2023, 02:05:29 AM

I always tell you the truth Jeff. You just choose to disbelieve the things I say which make you uncomfortable

I'll give you a truth right now that will make you uncomfortable. Despite you disliking me, I still genuinely like you. Other than politics, we're not that dissimilar, and I appreciate your gaming knowledge and passion for gaming.

And I know you will think that's a lie to trick you. Because it makes you uncomfortable so it's just easier for you to think i'm lying. Though I'm not.

No no, that can’t be the case! You must be a monster who wants America to burn, and who uses slave labor, and who probably rapes kids just for fun. In fact you must be a literal monster, sort of like the blob, sitting and typing with your slimy pseudopods. Yes I think we nailed you down there! 😄
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 02, 2023, 05:12:44 AM

I always tell you the truth Jeff. You just choose to disbelieve the things I say which make you uncomfortable

I'll give you a truth right now that will make you uncomfortable. Despite you disliking me, I still genuinely like you. Other than politics, we're not that dissimilar, and I appreciate your gaming knowledge and passion for gaming.

And I know you will think that's a lie to trick you. Because it makes you uncomfortable so it's just easier for you to think i'm lying. Though I'm not.

No no, that can’t be the case! You must be a monster who wants America to burn, and who uses slave labor, and who probably rapes kids just for fun. In fact you must be a literal monster, sort of like the blob, sitting and typing with your slimy pseudopods. Yes I think we nailed you down there! 😄

Exactly! It is just like how giant redwoods produce more oxygen then all of the algae in the oceans.....
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: MeganovaStella on January 02, 2023, 08:15:08 AM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

he has a built-in jew detector
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on January 02, 2023, 08:28:50 AM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

he has a built-in jew detector

The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 02, 2023, 09:53:00 AM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

he has a built-in jew detector

The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net

Who?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on January 02, 2023, 11:16:00 AM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

he has a built-in jew detector

The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net

Who?

Since you seem to lack 5 seconds and a search engine, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Landa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Landa)

Note that it's a quip in relation to MeganovaStella's post.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 02, 2023, 11:56:08 AM
I've mentioned I am Jewish several times here at RPGsite, and it's never been a big deal or really much commented on. For example, I mentioned it in the Bob Bledsaw II thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/bob-bledsaw-ii-sprints-past-the-line/). Not the only thread where it has come up.

I'm not particularly devout as I don't go to temple very often. Acouple times a year, and I observe major holidays. Reformed sect temple when I do. 
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 02, 2023, 01:37:49 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

he has a built-in jew detector

The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net

Who?

Since you seem to lack 5 seconds and a search engine, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Landa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Landa)

So I'm played by an actor who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and the Best Actor Award at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, among other awards. Whom Quentin Tarantino has said that Hans Landa might be the greatest character he has ever written.

Thank you! That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me today!

Note that it's a quip in relation to MeganovaStella's post.

Which one?
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 02, 2023, 01:42:54 PM
I've mentioned I am Jewish several times here at RPGsite, and it's never been a big deal or really much commented on. For example, I mentioned it in the Bob Bledsaw II thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/bob-bledsaw-ii-sprints-past-the-line/). Not the only thread where it has come up.

I'm not particularly devout as I don't go to temple very often. Acouple times a year, and I observe major holidays. Reformed sect temple when I do.

Never registered with me.

I do remember when you ran over to CIRCVS MAXIMVS trying to mock Pundit in order to create some cross-forum drama and they laughed you out of there.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jhkim on January 02, 2023, 03:39:42 PM
There isn't any possible reconciliation or understanding between the radical. We need to find the people who are sensible, ethical, and logical (at least to some degree), and pull them away from the crazies.

Hi, MerrillWeathermay. I agree, though my expectations are very low. It's vanishingly rare for someone to change their general outlook. Still, someone can gain some understanding on a particular issue, or moderate on a few specifics.

I'd include radicals in this, too. For example, Alathon has a radical position in his ethno-nationalism - but he was willing to discuss it rationally in the past. He didn't engaged in personal attacks or unethical behavior that I saw, so I'm disappointed he is banned. I think often, radicalism is only maintained by constant silo of information. That's why cults try to disconnect people away from their family and friends, say.

For people to shift their position in any way, though, there needs to be honest communication about real and concrete experiences. For example, I have my personal experiences with my transgender friends and family. Any shift in my attitudes about transgender people can't contradict this. Conversely, though, I don't know your experiences with transgender people - and maybe learning your experiences will change my understanding.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on January 02, 2023, 05:19:25 PM
Which one?

MeganovaStella: 'he has a built-in jew detector'

My quip reply: 'The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net'
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: jeff37923 on January 02, 2023, 07:04:43 PM
Which one?

MeganovaStella: 'he has a built-in jew detector'

My quip reply: 'The Hans Landa of therpgsite.net'

Ah, serves me right for posting while distracted.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: SHARK on January 02, 2023, 07:31:30 PM
And I got to ask, why is this about my personal business, when we were talking about reconciliation? I certainly never raised it, and even the side comment in parathesis about globalism doesn't warrant an examination of my private business.

Wow, that sweatshop comment really struck a nerve with you!
Methinks thou dost protest too much!

So, how many temp workers do you hire when cap and gown season for graduates rolls around? Or do you just ship the work south of the border because the labor is cheaper?

Naw the sweatshop comment wasn't that big a deal. It was the slave labor comment that bugged me.

Not sure what you're getting at with these questions? We hire one office worker that is temp during the cap and gown season to help enter orders. Usually the daughter of another office worker, or someone else related to someone else we know. Usually they're a college student. We don't manufacture ordinary caps and gowns. We're just delivering them during the season, often by hiring a delivery company.

There isn't some big temp worker hiring that happens during that season. And that wouldn't make sense in our business. The stuff we do is too complicated to train someone on how to do it and then let them go months later. That would be a losing proposition. We'd invest more in the training than we'd get in production. Most of our employees have been there for many years. Some over 20 years.

No we don't have any vendors in Mexico. I looked into it years ago but a small business group I belonged to had a guy who convinced me it was a horrible idea. He had a factory there for a time, and his trucks would literally get hijacked.

So you see yourself as the Mini Me version of George Soros then, how petit bourgeois of you.

I don't see my self in any way relating to George Soros. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is we're both Jewish, which I suspect is at least part of what you meant.

How on Earth would he know if you were Jewish or not?

My Favorite Liberal Scratching Post will get mad and throw it out there.

See, he gets mad easily and then you actually get some truth out of him.

Greetings!

You're "Favourite Liberal Scratching Post"! *Laughing*

Hilarious, Jeff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Mistwell on January 03, 2023, 01:42:16 AM
I've mentioned I am Jewish several times here at RPGsite, and it's never been a big deal or really much commented on. For example, I mentioned it in the Bob Bledsaw II thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/bob-bledsaw-ii-sprints-past-the-line/). Not the only thread where it has come up.

I'm not particularly devout as I don't go to temple very often. Acouple times a year, and I observe major holidays. Reformed sect temple when I do.

Never registered with me.

I do remember when you ran over to CIRCVS MAXIMVS trying to mock Pundit in order to create some cross-forum drama and they laughed you out of there.

I don't remember the topic but I do remember that happening. Which was dumb of me. Wish I could remember what it was about.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: TrekkieKT on January 03, 2023, 03:47:39 AM
Quote
I am curious. What does the German hybrid system look like? I know nothing about it and had not heard that brought up before. I'm cool just Googling in but if you know something about it I'd be happy to hear a summary.

I think our healthcare system is a mess, and was made worse by Obamacare (though it was never good). The whole "you can keep your health insurance" was a lie - I could not. I was told I had to buy new health insurance, which covered less and cost more. And I was pissed about it. And my left-wing friends had no sympathy, and just kept repeating that more people had health insurance now and that was a small price to pay. As all of them enjoyed health insurance paid for by their employer (sometimes the Government or a University) and they paid no price

Let me see if I can dig this out of the long-term memory, it's been a long time since I was in Germany but:

Every adult is obligated to have health insurance, public or private.
The basic level (public) of this insurance is agreed periodically between the government, health care bodies and insurance bodies (Krakenkassen).
This agreement is that for X Euros, we cover Y benefits, illnesses and drugs, as well as ambulance etc.
If you're low income, or on benefits, the government covers/tops-up your payments at the minimum rate.
Otherwise you're paying a premium of ~7.5% of your income to cover healthcare (matched by employee).
Premiums don't increase with age, pre-existing conditions of anything like that.
The insurance groups are all not-for profit (at least with respect to the public insurance) and in many lander there is a government run option.

If you earn a significantly high wage (>~65K Euro) you have the option of having private health insurance.
This is closer to American insurance in that the insurer is relatively free to set the rates and services provided/covered by the insurance (they cannot be worse than the basic public option).

The advantage of this is that a high-earning individual can avoid paying a massive premium compared to the public option (7.5% of the cut-off income is ~4,800 Euros, so a person earning $200,000 Euros is better off paying a 6,000 Euro premium instead of 7.5%).

The dis-advantage of this is that premiums go up as you age, that pre-existing conditions can be considered and that if your income drops it can be bloody hard to get back into the basic system.

When you turn up to the doctor or hospital they dock your insurance and treat you.
There may or may not be an out-of pocket before treatment and they're required to provide you a summary beforehand of those costs.

If you're admitted to hospital for a medically necessary procedure, there's generally no out-of pocket.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: Grognard GM on January 03, 2023, 05:34:04 AM
I am curious. What does the German hybrid system look like?

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/99/25/2f/99252fd6f38e74bb39994f38aef97796.jpg)

Title: Re: Reconciliation
Post by: RPGPundit on January 06, 2023, 12:56:37 PM
Bored of this now.