Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Aether

Pages: 1 23 ... 212
1
The Flood / Re: post users who are literally insane
« on: October 14, 2018, 03:04:34 PM »
1.3k subs on YT so probs about to start monetizing my channel soon
I thought you had to have 10k.

2
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 14, 2018, 12:02:07 AM »
What are you talking about? What would I even need to disguise? And I never claimed that either party was more or less civilized than the other. It's fine if you don't care how I feel about Trump supporters because I haven't been trying to defend them or change your opinion of them. I specifically said that it would be a futile effort to attempt that, so I wouldn't bother with it.

I said why I thought advocating for incivility was a bad idea in both a practical and principled sense. That's all I was ever trying to say in this thread, there's nothing more to it. I think it's a bad idea for the left to embrace it, I think it's a bad idea for the right to embrace it, I think it's bad that Trump is embracing it, and I wish more politicians would try to maintain values like civility that sustain our society. Agree or disagree. It's whatever at this point.

3
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 13, 2018, 07:10:25 PM »
They don’t exist in a large enough quantity to give a fuck about. These aren’t the people that got trump in office, and they’re not the ones who are gonna get him out of there either. It’s his loyal and devoted cult following.

There is nothing moderate about you if you voted for trump. You may not necessarily be radical in your views, but you are highly ignorant, misinformed, and prone to bigoted views as that’s what trump is all about.
Alright, whatever man, Trump voters are a radical moronic cult of bigots. I still think it's a terrible idea for a party to be insulting to the voters.
What exactly do you think trump voters are? Did your mom vote for him or some shit?

Whoever it is you feel the need to defend, they’re ignorant and misinformed. I’m not saying this makes them bad people, or deserving of insults. I never said I agree with any politicians insulting anybody or Hillary’s “deplorable” comment. But you need to realize people that voted for trump are not really people that are going to vote democrat, nor are they that large of a group. People that voted for Obama expecting radical change were imbecilic then and they still are now for thinking trump would deliver on that because he’s an “outsider” when he’s another rich kid in bed with everyone.
Trump voters can defend themselves. The only thing I was defending in this thread was the value of civility.

And what are you talking about "the people that voted for trump aren't that large of a group?" Nearly half of the country voted for him. Are you trying to say that the swing voters that voted for Trump aren't that large of a group? I don't know how big exactly that group is but I'm willing to bet it's at least in the millions considering the percentage of voters that are swing voters. Maybe that isn't all that significant to you but you also have to consider the potential voters that abstained or the independent/third party voters that may be turned away from any side that starts doing away with civility.

It's just not good for democrats to be attacking the voting base, and we shouldn't be tossing out values like civility just to beat the other side, especially if it's likely going to make things worse for your side. Acting with incivility is just going to further radicalize our society and drive a wedge deeper between it. It's not a good thing, at all.

That's what I'm saying here, and it seems like you at least understand that point, though you may not entirely agree; I'm not sure. I didn't post in this thread to tell anyone that their idea of who Trump voters are is wrong. If I actually wanted to defend them then I would've said a lot more than just, "I don't see them the same way as you."

4
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 13, 2018, 05:12:32 PM »
They don’t exist in a large enough quantity to give a fuck about. These aren’t the people that got trump in office, and they’re not the ones who are gonna get him out of there either. It’s his loyal and devoted cult following.

There is nothing moderate about you if you voted for trump. You may not necessarily be radical in your views, but you are highly ignorant, misinformed, and prone to bigoted views as that’s what trump is all about.
Alright, whatever man, Trump voters are a radical moronic cult of bigots. I still think it's a terrible idea for a party to be insulting to the voters.

5
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 13, 2018, 03:27:41 PM »
I don't want to get into big discussion over what moderates actually are. The crux of my argument was based on swing voters which a lot of moderates are. It doesn't really matter what constitutes a moderate, there are still people who will vote either way and you don't convince those people by acting uncivil towards them.
”It doesn’t really matter that I’m wrong, I still think I’m right”
My whole point was that there are people who will vote either way and the left shouldn't be insulting to them. I wasn't trying to argue over what is or is not a moderate. I was only using it as a descriptor for people torn between the two parties.

I don't understand why you want me to admit I was wrong about what a moderate is so much, when I never even implied my idea of what a moderate is was the only right one. I don't even have a very specific idea of what constitutes being politically moderate. It was just a general term I used for people who aren't strictly partisan. Flee's idea is almost certainly way more thought out and refined than mine, and I'm not gonna act like I know enough to tell him he's wrong, especially because I was never trying to argue over what a moderate actually is.

My whole argument in the second half of this thread was never once, "I know what moderates actually are." It was always, "these types of people exist, regardless of how we want to label them, and we shouldn't attack them as voters "

I don't know how much more clear I can be than that. If you still want to attribute some sort of attitude to me that I don't actually have then I don't know what else to say.
You should know what a moderate is when you’re saying a large amount of them voted for a guy who is extremely partisan and trash talks all his opposition. You’re only pointing it the flaws in your argument by continuing this notion that level headed intelligent people voted for trump. This isn’t to say people that voted for Hillary are inherently more intelligent, but there is obviously a clear cut difference here and you’re pretending it doesn’t exist.
The way I'm trying to describe certain people that voted for Trump is that they have the capacity to vote the other way. I'm not going to act like I know what kind of people that everyone who voted for Trump are. There's no way I could ever know that. I also never stated that there's no difference between the two sides, I don't know where you're getting that from.

There are people who were and are torn between both sides of the political spectrum. I used the term moderate to describe them. Perhaps someone with that position who sided with Trump isn't moderate. Maybe they were before but the current state of things shifted them to a more partisan stance. It's just not the point of my argument, at all. What you want to label the swing voters that voted for Trump doesn't really have any bearing on fact that they exist. That is what I'm saying and have been this entire time.

I don't understand why you keep focusing on what I think a moderate actually is. No I don't feel like everyone that voted for Trump is a complete moron, I just think a lot people felt like they were driven to do something drastic, and I'm sure a lot of people have regrets over it now. I'm not trying to convince anyone otherwise, here. It's futile to even attempt that, especially with you and others who have such a negative opinion of Trump voters. It just doesn't matter, swing voters are still a thing, period. Call them what you want. Believe they are idiots, or don't. They still exist.

I won't even call them moderates anymore if you'll get over this weird issue you have with what I've been saying.

6
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 13, 2018, 12:46:38 PM »
I don't want to get into big discussion over what moderates actually are. The crux of my argument was based on swing voters which a lot of moderates are. It doesn't really matter what constitutes a moderate, there are still people who will vote either way and you don't convince those people by acting uncivil towards them.
”It doesn’t really matter that I’m wrong, I still think I’m right”
My whole point was that there are people who will vote either way and the left shouldn't be insulting to them. I wasn't trying to argue over what is or is not a moderate. I was only using it as a descriptor for people torn between the two parties.

I don't understand why you want me to admit I was wrong about what a moderate is so much, when I never even implied my idea of what a moderate is was the only right one. I don't even have a very specific idea of what constitutes being politically moderate. It was just a general term I used for people who aren't strictly partisan. Flee's idea is almost certainly way more thought out and refined than mine, and I'm not gonna act like I know enough to tell him he's wrong, especially because I was never trying to argue over what a moderate actually is.

My whole argument in the second half of this thread was never once, "I know what moderates actually are." It was always, "these types of people exist, regardless of how we want to label them, and we shouldn't attack them as voters "

I don't know how much more clear I can be than that. If you still want to attribute some sort of attitude to me that I don't actually have then I don't know what else to say.

7
The Flood / Re: Do some people really not have an "inner voice?"
« on: October 13, 2018, 11:48:19 AM »
I'm sure most of you have seen the NPC meme that's gained prominence lately, which is basically just the idea of a philosophical zombie that has been around for a long time, and it's mainly just used as a way to poke fun at people with ideas or interests someone doesn't like.

Something I've heard when people have discussed it, however, is the idea of an "inner voice," which is basically just a person's tendency to speak to themselves within their own mind when thinking. Apparently some people claim that they don't do this and it just sounds really strange to me.

Maybe it's because I'm an introverted person, but I'm constantly "talking" to myself in my head when I think about something. Do people really just not use at least some form of language in their mind to define concepts when they are contemplating something? I suppose it's entirely possible.
If I'm thinking about something regarding language like a movie quote, a book, preparing something I am about to say or write (like now) then I would say I have an inner voice.

Typically, though, my thoughts are more like flashes of visual memory + emotions + some other random sense. When I think, it's more like some kind of simulation in my head. For instance: the apartment above me recently leaked a shit ton of water down into one of my walls and it is growing mold; it will need to be replaced.

When I think about this, I don't think the words "water damage" or "mold", I imagine in my head the stains on the wall and the green bits of slime, where they are in my apartment, and get a feeling of dread as I imagine the stack of papers in my closet that has my insurance information on it. I can see myself on the phone, pacing around my apartment talking to someone about it and then I switch to a vision of repair guys moving around my washer / dryer so they can get at the warped wall.

Through all that, I may hear English words for things I don't have a solid mental image of like "insurance", but it's a very minor part of it.

On the regular, though, I don't tend to think in a language and I don't usually hear a mental "voice". Again, not saying I don't have one at all; I just only really hear it when I'm remembering something spoken or read or when I'm actively trying to prepare or think in English.

Dunno if that makes sense or is much different from the norm.
Yeah I understand that. Thinking in shapes, colors, emotions etc. is something I do all the time, especially when I'm practicing art or trying to come up with new ideas for it. My thoughts are definitely not just an endless string of words.

However, it seemed like some people were claiming that they just don't speak to themselves inside their mind at all, and that's what sounds really strange to me. How does a person write or read without doing so? How do they contemplate abstract ideas that are almost entirely defined through language?

These questions made me think that, as Verb said, some people just didn't quite understand what it meant to have and "inner voice" and actually do think with language. But I also considered the idea of someone who was never taught any language, and I wonder what their capacity to contemplate certain ideas is like.

8
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 13, 2018, 11:06:58 AM »
I don't want to get into big discussion over what moderates actually are. The crux of my argument was based on swing voters which a lot of moderates are. It doesn't really matter what constitutes a moderate, there are still people who will vote either way and you don't convince those people by acting uncivil towards them.

9
The Flood / Re: what is the worst thing you've done in the past 168 hours
« on: October 12, 2018, 04:27:36 PM »
Waste time.

10
The Flood / Re: Do some people really not have an "inner voice?"
« on: October 11, 2018, 05:42:16 PM »
And I’ve met very few individuals, probably like 5 my whole life, who I really believe don’t have it at all. They’re so interesting. It’s like their entire life is purely instinctual. Every action, word, etc all come from a place of instinct and not thought.
I couldn't imagine living this way, where basically every action is on impulse. I feel like I would make so many mistakes and wouldn't learn from them as well.

11
The Flood / Re: Do some people really not have an "inner voice?"
« on: October 11, 2018, 03:38:24 PM »
it's hard for me to imagine someone not doing this, to where i'd be inclined to believe that someone who claims that they don't is either lying, or they just don't understand what it means to have an inner voice, because it wasn't explained to them properly—they might be interpreting the question as "do you hear voices" or "are you schizophrenic" or something

i even listen to music in my head, which is why i never found it necessary to get an mp3 player or anything like that as a kid—and to this day, i still think listening to music with your phone is a little strange—because what's the point if i can just play back any song i want in my head at will
See I though about that as well, that they just didn't understand what it meant to have an "inner voice," but then I considered the idea of someone who was never taught any language at all. Like a hypothetical "raised by animals" child. I wonder what thoughts would be like for them.

Also, regarding your point about music, why then would you ever listen to a song again if you can remember the entire thing? While I do play songs in my head, and in fact I almost always have at least one song or another stuck in it, actually hearing music triggers a greater emotional response for me.

12
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 11, 2018, 03:26:13 PM »
Now you're saying we just don't agree on what populism is. It's defined as "support for the concerns of ordinary people" and if ordinary people are concerned with something like immigration and Trump is appealing to those concerns then I'd say he's being populist. The definition doesn't establish that whatever concern has to be good or bad, just that it's one held by the general population. I don't want to get into what populism actually is, it seems like so many arguments just end up over semantics.

Your refutation of my point has seemingly been, "all Trump voters are far right," which I obviously don't agree with, and all I'm saying is that if that's the message Democrats want to convey to voters then they're going to lose swing voters that actually have a chance of voting the other way. I never said that shouldn't appeal to other people as well, the only thing I've really said is that they shouldn't insult any of the voters and should focus on policy, and that our society shouldn't be tossing values like civility away for the sake of winning.

I'm not some "intelligent centrist," that's just some idea you seem to be generating because I don't agree with you I guess? I never once implied you or Verb or Eli were "lowly" because I didn't agree. I don't think I'll ever understand this perception that I'm acting condescending you have when I disagree with you. Is it because I don't just tell you that you're a fucking idiot or something instead? Because I don't believe that shit. I know everyone I've argued with in this thread has a brain and the capacity to think critically, but I can see when I'm not going to change anyone's mind which is almost always, so i'm not going to fight their position that much. Most of my replies are for the sake of clarifying what I think so people understand better.

The main reason I think Democrats embracing incivility is a bad strategy is based on the idea of voters who are torn between the two parties.  If you think no Trump voter will ever vote the other way, and I think it's possible a large amount of them will, then where else does this argument go? You don't like me, I have virtually no influence over what you believe, so what else is there to discuss? I could keep trying to clarify what I believe but it's likely you'll just continue to think I'm an idiot.

13
The Flood / Do some people really not have an "inner voice?"
« on: October 11, 2018, 02:48:17 PM »
I'm sure most of you have seen the NPC meme that's gained prominence lately, which is basically just the idea of a philosophical zombie that has been around for a long time, and it's mainly just used as a way to poke fun at people with ideas or interests someone doesn't like.

Something I've heard when people have discussed it, however, is the idea of an "inner voice," which is basically just a person's tendency to speak to themselves within their own mind when thinking. Apparently some people claim that they don't do this and it just sounds really strange to me.

Maybe it's because I'm an introverted person, but I'm constantly "talking" to myself in my head when I think about something. Do people really just not use at least some form of language in their mind to define concepts when they are contemplating something? I suppose it's entirely possible.

14
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 11, 2018, 02:24:30 PM »
Saying that absolutely no one who voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary is an absolute.
So why didn’t they? Why did they all vote for trump?

Quote
My point about moderates is based on the fact that swing voters exist, and traditionally always have. Both sides are moving away from each other and the percentage of swing voters is declining, but they still count. Trump was able to sway a lot of them to his side when he embraced a populist campaign.
LOL

The crazy shit he was saying was not populist. He was appealing to bigoted and fearful whites, which this country is full of. That’s how he won, as well as self hating minorities that want to be white.

Quote
I'm not trying to say Hillary would've been able to win somehow by swaying swing voters. I think she was an awful candidate with way too much controversial baggage, and she made a huge mistake by insulting voters and playing the game of identity politics. What I'm saying is the left needs a candidate that can actually attract moderates.
Where were all these moderates when trump was elected? How can you look at trump as a “moderate” and say hmm, this guy is better than Hillary.
All I ever heard Trump talking about in his campaign was, "Jobs jobs jobs," and , "we need better immigration control." Which a huge percentage of the population obviously cares about or they wouldn't have voted for him. What makes an issue populist if not being something that a giant portion of the average population cares about? You can have both left populist ideas like healthcare for all, or right populist ideas like stronger immigration laws.

I don't want to get into how awful Trump is and how vile everyone who voted for him is. Whatever idea you have of half of this country isn't something I'm gonna change anytime soon and it's not really useful to the point I was making.

All I'm trying to say is that there are people who voted for Trump who will vote the other way, Democrats need to appeal to those people, and they aren't going to do it by being insulting to them.

If all you want to reply back to that now is, "every Trump voter is far right," then I don't really have anything else to discuss here.

15
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 11, 2018, 01:59:15 PM »
Staunch Trump supports were never going to vote for Hillary, but I thought I made it pretty obvious that I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the millions of moderates that actually gave Trump the advantage. The people that will vote either way depending on the candidate. Not everyone in this country is so strictly partisan.
If you're given a choice between Trump and Clinton, and you are genuinely unsure of which one to choose, you're not a moderate.

Being a moderate does not mean you think all candidates are worthy of equal individual consideration—it just means you find yourself in the center of the political spectrum. That means more extreme candidates are going to turn you away. That means Trump is sure to shut out the true moderates.
Basically you're saying that anyone who would vote for Trump cannot be in the center. I don't see how that's true at all. People are not static. And some are more easily swayed than others. I think a lot of fence sitters were pulled to the right when Trump campaigned on standing up for the working class, and maybe they aren't in the center so much anymore, but I'm willing to bet that those people can very well be pulled back towards the left by the right kind of candidate.

Regardless of how much you hate Trump, how you feel about him and those who voted for him doesn't just negate the fact that there are a lot of people that will vote the other way if what they perceive as a better option is presented to them. That can be provided without having to embrace all the negative aspects of Trump.

16
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 11, 2018, 01:53:21 PM »
Saying that absolutely no one who voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary is an absolute.

My point about moderates is based on the fact that swing voters exist, and traditionally always have. Both sides are moving away from each other and the percentage of swing voters is declining, but they still count. Trump was able to sway a lot of them to his side when he embraced a populist campaign.

I'm not trying to say Hillary would've been able to win somehow by swaying swing voters. I think she was an awful candidate with way too much controversial baggage, and she made a huge mistake by insulting voters and playing the game of identity politics. What I'm saying is the left needs a candidate that can actually attract moderates.

17
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 11, 2018, 01:17:40 PM »
People aren't going to consider themselves the exception when you degrade them for very specific actions, like supporting a movement or candidate. One of the main reasons Hillary's basket of deplorables comment was so damaging for her. You insult voters for who they're considering to vote for and it certainly isn't going to bring them over to your side, especially when your opponent is painting you as a condescending elitist. If Trump insulted average citizens then he made a big gamble in doing so and he's lucky it didn't backfire on him badly.

I don't know what candidate this country needs right now. I don't know much about this Avenatti guy besides him being a lawyer who is highly opposed to Trump. I just know that the next democratic candidate needs to appeal to the average citizen the way Trump was able to by embracing issues the average american citizen actually cares about (hopefully genuinely) instead of playing the game of identity politics, and they need to avoid upsetting the millions of voters who are currently torn over supporting a party that is perceived as elitist and uncaring of the working class.
Those people were never gonna vote for her. You’re just constantly talking out of your ass here and it’s sickening. There is no reasoning with these people. These are the same people that believe she’s part of a pedophile ring with kids in kept in pizza store basements.
Staunch Trump supports were never going to vote for Hillary, but I thought I made it pretty obvious that I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the millions of moderates that actually gave Trump the advantage. The people that will vote either way depending on the candidate. Not everyone in this country is so strictly partisan.
You’re blind if you can’t see just how partisan America has been since Obama was elected. Nobody that voted for trump was ever going to vote for Hillary. Maybe for Bernie, but he was so weak and had such leftist ideals it would have never worked out in a million years.
I never said the country wasn't growing more partisan, but just because society is becoming more polarized doesn't mean there aren't still millions of moderates that will vote either way.

You're dealing in absolutes which is just foolish. Maybe only a small number of people that voted for Trump would have voted for Hillary if she had held a better campaign, but I'm willing to bet that a whole lot more Trump voters would've voted Democrat if they had a better candidate than the two awful ones we ended up with.

I don't know who they need, exactly, but it's gotta be someone that will actually lay out their policy and try to tackle issues Americans actually care about, drop the identity politics nonsense, and won't insult voters.

18
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 11, 2018, 12:26:39 PM »
People aren't going to consider themselves the exception when you degrade them for very specific actions, like supporting a movement or candidate. One of the main reasons Hillary's basket of deplorables comment was so damaging for her. You insult voters for who they're considering to vote for and it certainly isn't going to bring them over to your side, especially when your opponent is painting you as a condescending elitist. If Trump insulted average citizens then he made a big gamble in doing so and he's lucky it didn't backfire on him badly.

I don't know what candidate this country needs right now. I don't know much about this Avenatti guy besides him being a lawyer who is highly opposed to Trump. I just know that the next democratic candidate needs to appeal to the average citizen the way Trump was able to by embracing issues the average american citizen actually cares about (hopefully genuinely) instead of playing the game of identity politics, and they need to avoid upsetting the millions of voters who are currently torn over supporting a party that is perceived as elitist and uncaring of the working class.
Those people were never gonna vote for her. You’re just constantly talking out of your ass here and it’s sickening. There is no reasoning with these people. These are the same people that believe she’s part of a pedophile ring with kids in kept in pizza store basements.
Staunch Trump supports were never going to vote for Hillary, but I thought I made it pretty obvious that I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the millions of moderates that actually gave Trump the advantage. The people that will vote either way depending on the candidate. Not everyone in this country is so strictly partisan.

19
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 10, 2018, 10:48:17 PM »
People aren't going to consider themselves the exception when you degrade them for very specific actions, like supporting a movement or candidate. One of the main reasons Hillary's basket of deplorables comment was so damaging for her. You insult voters for who they're considering to vote for and it certainly isn't going to bring them over to your side, especially when your opponent is painting you as a condescending elitist. If Trump insulted average citizens then he made a big gamble in doing so and he's lucky it didn't backfire on him badly.

I don't know what candidate this country needs right now. I don't know much about this Avenatti guy besides him being a lawyer who is highly opposed to Trump. I just know that the next democratic candidate needs to appeal to the average citizen the way Trump was able to by embracing issues the average american citizen actually cares about (hopefully genuinely) instead of playing the game of identity politics, and they need to avoid upsetting the millions of voters who are currently torn over supporting a party that is perceived as elitist and uncaring of the working class.

20
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 10, 2018, 09:43:29 PM »
Even besides trying to uphold the values of our civilization, incivility towards your opposition just isn't a good strategy. Look the point isn't to persuade "dumbass rednecks." You can't possibly believe that the entirety of the millions who voted for Trump are some idiot hillbillies. It's just not accurate in any sense.

One major key thing about Trumps incivility is who he targets and how his base feels about that. There are millions of moderate working class people in the US that have felt like their government has forgotten them for many years now. That the political class, as well as the media, have become highly elitist and smug, ignoring and neglecting their struggle.

Trump came in and acted like a total ass to these politicians and journalists. He played the role of the populist come to shake things up and stand for the average working citizen. Whether or not he was genuine doesn't really matter, it worked out very well for him as many moderates supported him when he seemed like the only person who would stand up for them at that time. He has a huge base and is continuously reinforcing the perception that his opposition is an elitist class that scoffs at the plight of his supporters, but not everyone that voted for him is so staunchly supportive of him, and I know many are hoping for a better candidate.

What is going to happen when you go after these people with hate and vitriol? How is blasting the voting base instead of trying to appeal to it going to get you the win? The left needs politicians who can show voters that Trump isn't good for the country while at the same time letting them know that it's okay that they voted for him, they were only doing what they thought was best for their struggles. That there is someone better now that will genuinely stand for them.

People don't remember your ideas so much as they remember how you make them feel, and if you make voters feel like they are morons then they aren't going to support you.

If you want to get rougher with the politicians and try to turn trumps strategy against him. To create the perception that his lot are the elitists and that you're here to shake things up, I'd say you have a difficult task ahead of you. But if you just want to shit all over the voters themselves then I'd say you're digging your own political grave.

21
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 10, 2018, 08:37:31 PM »
Are you actually saying that the principle of civility and trying to maintain it is nonsense?

I am more of a here and now type of person and I understand that abandoning certain values within our society has grave consequences for it. Advocating for incivility has a very tangible effect that can be observed in real time. Trying to maintain civility is not some far off ideal that we can simply hope to achieve in the future, it's something that can absolutely be done here and now, and it will shape the way our society evolves.

There is no reason we cannot seek to solve issues like climate change without upholding the fundamental values of our society. You make it sound like the only way we can save ourselves is to tear down our current society for a more hateful and divided one, and that to me sounds absolutely horrible.

I think the more vitriol you have towards your opposition, the more they are going to push back and disregard what you are trying to warn them about. To me it looks like your incivility will only contribute to a failure to make genuine change. That is, unless you want to force change through authoritarian means and subvert the democratic values you were saying the right wants to do away with.

22
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 10, 2018, 07:34:21 PM »
I assume you're a rational person with an ability to think critically, so why are you dealing in absolutes when it comes to the right? There may be politicians on the right that want essentially oppress others for their own personal gain, but there just as well can be and are those on the left who want to do the same. Nothing is so black and white. Focusing on each side as a collective instead of addressing people who identify with them as individuals isn't conducive to understanding the nature of each side with clarity.

Regardless, that position doesn't explain in any way how advocating for civility is somehow lacking in wisdom. You think it's because whichever side is uncivilized has an advantage over the side that isn't? I don't believe that at all for the very reason I laid out at the bottom of my post. All this hate and vitriol is radicalizing people at an alarming rate, driving away moderates who can help rein the radicals back in, and contributing to a growing divide within society that absolutely has the power to destabilize it, if history has taught us anything.

This isn't about some kumbaya cliche hippie nonsense, this is about upholding certain principles that make up the fabric of civilization. Responding to radicals by becoming radical in the opposite way may allow you to "win" against them for now, but what kind of society are you going to create in the process? And what is going to stop the other side from responding in kind and winning in the future?

These people that you seem to hate so much on the right, there are millions of them and they aren't going anywhere. Unless you want some violent authoritarian revolution in which you force them out of society, you have to deal with the fact that they are here and have the same power that you do to impact the way your country runs. Collectivizing them as scum of the earth instead of observing and confronting them as individuals isn't going to help sway anyone on their side, and more importantly it turns away moderates, who are more likely to see things your way, and can actually give your side a real advantage.

I don't expect that this is something we will come to an agreement on. It's really disheartening to see that so many on either side think this way.

23
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 10, 2018, 04:59:33 PM »
I would like to say that this tendency towards incivility in politics is an absolutely terrible idea in my eyes. Our society is becoming increasingly polarized and divided, and this idea that people should be uncivilized in their opposition is only going to exacerbate that.

That's an unbearably naive thing to say when one side was elected to run the country due to their incivility. When we have climate change and wealth inequality under control, then we can perhaps see a return to civil politics.

It'd be different if the disagreements between parties were things like what you think should be done about health food in schools or how much businesses should be paying taxes, not whether women have the right to abortion, or climate change is a hoax/is happening and there's nothing we can do about it so go ahead and pollute away.
Why is it naive? How can you definitively say Trump was elected because of his incivility over his populist appeal through his policy? I've seen a great deal of people that have said they do not like his egotism and rudeness, but still voted for him because of policy.

I would say it's naive to assume that only one aspect of Trump was the major contributing variable to his election, and that the only way to win is to respond in kind.

I also think it's very foolish to throw away good values because the opposition is also throwing them away.

There are a lot of moderate people like me that are feeling disconnected from the current political and social climate who are longing for some sort of movement that isn't so tribalistic and hostile. Many on the left would call me a far right racist because I don't think mass immigration is a great idea, and many on the right would call me a cucked socialist soyboy because I think our government could find a way to provide everyone with health care. Why would I want to align myself with either of them? There are a ton of people in the center within society that are looking at both the left and the right at this time and thinking both sides are absolutely unappealing from all the hate and vitriol that's being espoused, and the violence taking place.

24
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 10, 2018, 03:15:54 PM »
I would like to say that this tendency towards incivility in politics is an absolutely terrible idea in my eyes. Our society is becoming increasingly polarized and divided, and this idea that people should be uncivilized in their opposition is only going to exacerbate that.

Our civilization was beginning to overcome tribalism, but it looks like we're taking a good number of steps back in that regard, and it's just sad af.

I do think people should have the right to be uncivil, so long as they aren't violent, but I wish more would advocate for less vitriol towards their opponents.

25
Serious / Re: Where the hell was this version of Hillary Clinton before?
« on: October 09, 2018, 07:13:13 PM »
Why? She's just another cookie cutter neo-lib warmonger. Democrats need an actual genuine leader that will push back against the corruption in US politics, one who will embrace left populist issues like ending the drug war, providing health care, sorting out the horrible student loan debt crisis here, and above all, ending these bullshit proxy wars the US keeps fighting in third world countries.

I'm not gonna hold my breath for anyone like that, however.

26
The Flood / Re: Art Hub
« on: October 07, 2018, 11:21:30 PM »
Inktober is always dope, but I can never bring myself to commit to it.

Pencil sketch of a demon girl head:


27
Serious / Re: Brett Kavanaugh
« on: October 07, 2018, 08:38:19 PM »
More than anything else, I'm upset that we've sworn in a partisan judge. Which should just be not be a thing, especially when it's a lifelong position.
This. As soon as I heard him wave away all of the accusations as a conspiracy generated as "revenge for the Clintons" I stopped thinking he should have the seat. Judges will have conservative or liberal inclinations (whether slight or riding the margins) but they shouldn't be a part of the partisan circus. Now the Supreme Court, the last branch of the government that the people had faith in, has fallen to the swamp in D.C. just like the other two.
Honestly is anyone even able to get anywhere in politics/law without being partisan in the current political landscape? Seems like everyone is becoming heavily tribal and moderates are becoming more and more ostracized for committing to remain impartial.

28
The Flood / Re: Pizza time
« on: October 04, 2018, 06:07:53 PM »
This looks way wackier than I thought it was going to be.

29
The Flood / Re: Best Jolly Rancher?
« on: October 03, 2018, 09:35:33 PM »
I can't have em anymore but lemon was my favorite.

30
The Flood / Re: Convince me anyone making more than 250k
« on: October 03, 2018, 07:53:07 PM »
How does it not stifle the ability to invest if the vast majority of money that they would have to invest is taken from them? It doesn't remove their ability to, but it drastically reduces the amount of money they have to.

Because investors will always invest the amount of money they deem acceptable depending on the investment prospects. Mark Cuban of Shark Tank never shuts up about how taxes have literally nothing to do with his investment ability; they don't even cross his mind when potentially making an investment.

And there are (should be) tax breaks for those who actually invest their money.


Quote
I don't see how you could have such a caricature of an idea of a rich person without being a little more distrusting of bureaucrats.


I'm not so naive as to think politics is working as it should, but at least there's an air of legitimacy to the system and we, the people, have some say as to what our governments actually spend the money on. Politicians are forced to work for the people, there is no such incentive for billionaires. Relying on a few benevolent kings to fix our system is absolutely not the answer.

I can't help but find it a little irritating that your problem with the government is that it spends too much on war, so your solution is to trust a few billionaires who made their wealth exploiting other people to take care of you. It's just absolutely absurd. Tax the rich, get out of debt, take care of your citizens. That's what the agenda should be, and if it isn't, vote in the people most likely to get you as close to that goal as possible.

I will grant you that America is an absolute social shithole right now that can't agree on anything so the prospect of actual change seems impossible. That's why I'm trying to keep the subject hypothetical rather than "Well look how the government spends its money right now!" Well no, we're talking idealistically, because that's how rational thought works: you figure out the ideal scenario, and then work to make it reality.


Maybe my layman brain just can't comprehend it, but taking away 90% of a person's wealth leaves them an unquestionably lower amount of money to invest with. I wouldn't figure a tax increase of 10 or even 20% to have that much of an impact on how much they are willing to invest, but 90% is nearly all of their earnings. If someone earns 100 million dollars in a single year and plans to invest around 10% of that, they would be left with very little comparatively, unless they receive a very significant tax break for investing.

I don't trust billionaires really any more so than I do politicians on a general level. It's the difference between the nature of the free market and government that influences my opinion on this. The commercial world allows for individuals to have a greater impact on society through innovation in a shorter amount of time than government does.

We desperately need to sort out the rampant cronyism within our capitalist society, but that cronyism is wedded to money and corruption in politics. There are at least a few of the rich that are helping to improve society, and funnel money back into the lower rungs, and they are able to do so more effectively because they don't have to jump though so many legislative hoops as the state and because the individual has more power within the market. I don't believe that should be taken away from them in favor of letting the state take care of it right now.

It's not ideal all but, you're right, I'm not looking at this idealistically.  I'm just more of a "here and now" kind of person. Tax the wealthiest people more, sure. I just don't think it should be 90%. It doesn't seem like we're gonna be able to agree on that, I guess.

Pages: 1 23 ... 212