Speaking of conspiracy theories...

[dneal]

Do you think there is a radical left?

Some commentator or lecturer I heard the other day made a statement along the lines of: "We know there is a radical right, and where its limit begins (e.g.: neo-nazis, "freemen", etc...). Where is that line on the left?". I thought it was a good point, and have been pondering that.

I would think so, but perhaps defining what it means to be radical is in order. For example, I could be considered radical if I am in the minority opinion. Is that how you define radicalization? If not, how?

Maybe it's like porn, and I know it when I see it... It's a good question, though. I think Antifa and whatnot are obvious. There's nothing "peaceful" about burning cities - and I think that's the criticism of "leftist" journalists and politicians the right has (and is correct about). It's nested somewhere in cancel-culture and safe-spaces, and I don't know where the line is.

As an aside, and I think I posted it somewhere else, but I have found "motive" to be a very effective litmus test for discerning bias (left or right). Does the speaker assign motive? If so, they're not worth listening to. 'Trump is literally Hitler' or 'Obama is a Communist' are the truncated versions in our ADHD, text-distracted, 30-second burritos ain't fast enough society that has devolved to a bunch of toddlers throwing tantrums about nothing.

The longer versions are much more eloquent, of course; and although I despise The Atlantic's lack of journalistic integrity, I do enjoy the writing and editing. There are magazines on the right I feel similarly about - although it has been sad to watch Peggy Noonan's writing decline... Everything between is the "talking heads". Cuomo, Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olberman, Lemon, Kelly, etc... They're all just degrees of intensity and verbosity in assigning motive to the other side.

It's rhetorical. It's persuasive. It's profitable.

It's a distraction.

The context for which I heard or read regarding assigning motive was in the setting of seeking an opportunity to compromise and/or reach agreement. If you and I were to meet in a room and I had preconceived opinions about why you were there other than you were there, it will limit me being able to see you as someone who truly wants to find a way to make it work.

When I read an op-ed where the writer referrs to Trump as a Hitler, I agree with you. In fact, I will try to discontinue doing so myself. That said, we have discriptive terms and definitions that can aid when we are trying to explain. Limiting our ability to discribe or compare can prevent effective communication. In my opinion and based on evidence, for me, I can objectivily make the case that Donald Trump was not a good leader nor does he have the skill set necessary to do so in a democratic government where there are three branches of government and term limits in place. We can disagree and I won't decide I know your motives for supporting Trump.

Lets take John McCain's vote against the "skinny repeal" of the ACA. What was the motive? What was Trump's response?

“While the amendment would have repealed some of ObamaCare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens,” McCain said. For me the motive was a concern for the American people who depend upon the ACA for healthcare. There was no indication he did it against Trump.

It is important to know how Trump handled McCain's action. What he said is important, but you don't have to imagine his motivations, just his words and actions.

To me the motive issue is simply one that allows people to leverage rhetoric as a substitute for reason. Pick a controversial topic, say border security. If it's just an indication of "racism", and everything from an opposing point of view is dismissed (because it's "racist), then there's not really any way to compromise. There are a lot of issues in border security. Actual security, economic impact, problems of assimilation, etc... But pros and cons can't be weighed when each side assigns motive to the other and refuses to discuss it. Most of the mass media has staked a position and assert motive as a given. Doesn't matter if it's a conservative or liberal writer. The other side wants to destroy the country or wants everyone to die... How prescient these writers are...

But each side happily consumes their preferred flavor of propaganda, which leads us to McCain. If I were a betting man and we had some way of actually knowing, I would wager McCain did it simply out of spite. I've never been a fan of his though. The argument he made does have merit, although that was lost in the noise. If we're just talking about whether or not Trump is petty and obnoxious (which may just be personality instead of motive), there's no disagreement here. I've consistently advocated discussion of his policies as opposed to his personality (or "bluster" I think I called it in another thread).

But that's exactly the point (and the point of that means/ends article). We get caught up in the "means". How or why we will do or did do a thing. What we should do, and how. No one looks at the ends, particularly if they don't make you feel as good as the means. That's how California managed to have to bail out their marijuana industry. They quibbled over the "how" and regulated it to the point of non-profitability. How in the hell do you lose money selling weed? Regulate the hell out of the process.

I'm reminded of the C.S. Lewis quote about moral busybodies:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

This is the problem for the left. Frankly, they're "know it all's", happy to dictate what's best for you, for your own good. Not too much salt to sodas, says the Mayor of New York, and then passes ordinances to ensure his torment of you, for your own good.

That's what people from Romania to Australia are protesting against. Moral busybodies leveraging the power of government that was entrusted to them by the people.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you think there is a radical left?

Some commentator or lecturer I heard the other day made a statement along the lines of: "We know there is a radical right, and where its limit begins (e.g.: neo-nazis, "freemen", etc...). Where is that line on the left?". I thought it was a good point, and have been pondering that.

I would think so, but perhaps defining what it means to be radical is in order. For example, I could be considered radical if I am in the minority opinion. Is that how you define radicalization? If not, how?

Maybe it's like porn, and I know it when I see it... It's a good question, though. I think Antifa and whatnot are obvious. There's nothing "peaceful" about burning cities - and I think that's the criticism of "leftist" journalists and politicians the right has (and is correct about). It's nested somewhere in cancel-culture and safe-spaces, and I don't know where the line is.

As an aside, and I think I posted it somewhere else, but I have found "motive" to be a very effective litmus test for discerning bias (left or right). Does the speaker assign motive? If so, they're not worth listening to. 'Trump is literally Hitler' or 'Obama is a Communist' are the truncated versions in our ADHD, text-distracted, 30-second burritos ain't fast enough society that has devolved to a bunch of toddlers throwing tantrums about nothing.

The longer versions are much more eloquent, of course; and although I despise The Atlantic's lack of journalistic integrity, I do enjoy the writing and editing. There are magazines on the right I feel similarly about - although it has been sad to watch Peggy Noonan's writing decline... Everything between is the "talking heads". Cuomo, Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olberman, Lemon, Kelly, etc... They're all just degrees of intensity and verbosity in assigning motive to the other side.

It's rhetorical. It's persuasive. It's profitable.

It's a distraction.

The context for which I heard or read regarding assigning motive was in the setting of seeking an opportunity to compromise and/or reach agreement. If you and I were to meet in a room and I had preconceived opinions about why you were there other than you were there, it will limit me being able to see you as someone who truly wants to find a way to make it work.

When I read an op-ed where the writer referrs to Trump as a Hitler, I agree with you. In fact, I will try to discontinue doing so myself. That said, we have discriptive terms and definitions that can aid when we are trying to explain. Limiting our ability to discribe or compare can prevent effective communication. In my opinion and based on evidence, for me, I can objectivily make the case that Donald Trump was not a good leader nor does he have the skill set necessary to do so in a democratic government where there are three branches of government and term limits in place. We can disagree and I won't decide I know your motives for supporting Trump.

Lets take John McCain's vote against the "skinny repeal" of the ACA. What was the motive? What was Trump's response?

“While the amendment would have repealed some of ObamaCare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens,” McCain said. For me the motive was a concern for the American people who depend upon the ACA for healthcare. There was no indication he did it against Trump.

It is important to know how Trump handled McCain's action. What he said is important, but you don't have to imagine his motivations, just his words and actions.

To me the motive issue is simply one that allows people to leverage rhetoric as a substitute for reason. Pick a controversial topic, say border security. If it's just an indication of "racism", and everything from an opposing point of view is dismissed (because it's "racist), then there's not really any way to compromise. There are a lot of issues in border security. Actual security, economic impact, problems of assimilation, etc... But pros and cons can't be weighed when each side assigns motive to the other and refuses to discuss it. Most of the mass media has staked a position and assert motive as a given. Doesn't matter if it's a conservative or liberal writer. The other side wants to destroy the country or wants everyone to die... How prescient these writers are...

But each side happily consumes their preferred flavor of propaganda, which leads us to McCain. If I were a betting man and we had some way of actually knowing, I would wager McCain did it simply out of spite. I've never been a fan of his though. The argument he made does have merit, although that was lost in the noise. If we're just talking about whether or not Trump is petty and obnoxious (which may just be personality instead of motive), there's no disagreement here. I've consistently advocated discussion of his policies as opposed to his personality (or "bluster" I think I called it in another thread).

But that's exactly the point (and the point of that means/ends article). We get caught up in the "means". How or why we will do or did do a thing. What we should do, and how. No one looks at the ends, particularly if they don't make you feel as good as the means. That's how California managed to have to bail out their marijuana industry. They quibbled over the "how" and regulated it to the point of non-profitability. How in the hell do you lose money selling weed? Regulate the hell out of the process.

I'm reminded of the C.S. Lewis quote about moral busybodies:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

This is the problem for the left. Frankly, they're "know it all's", happy to dictate what's best for you, for your own good. Not too much salt to sodas, says the Mayor of New York, and then passes ordinances to ensure his torment of you, for your own good.

That's what people from Romania to Australia are protesting against. Moral busybodies leveraging the power of government that was entrusted to them by the people.

I am not reading or hearing racism regarding border security. I’m hearing and reading people asking why can’t congress come up with a plan for citizenship. I’m not saying some people are not racists regarding citizenship.

So, you’re doing what you dislike regarding McCain. You are leaning toward “spite”. I’ve learned enough to know McCain didn’t operate that way. Given your military background, I’m surprised. A good person helps the SOB to where it’s almost a proverb.

I like CS, but have to disagree. That said, he fought in WW1 and knows more than me.

Yes, liberal elitism is a problem. It was Obama’s down fall. When he made that statement about people “clinging” he messed up, but it showed who he was and still is today. There are other black elitists that I notice. W.E.B Dubois had an edge, but I’m not faulting him.

I see things as having to go to the extreme (radical) before they can get to correct or what is universal for most if not all.

[dneal]

Border security has a different flavor now, but was "racist" for the entirety of Trump's campaign and Presidency.

I admit that I am human and have multiple facets. I can be honest and recognize an emotional bias, and I can set that aside and consider the merits of an argument. The reason/emotion problem is as old as humanity. Plato's "I see what is right and do it" refuted by Ovid's "Although I clearly see the right, my base nature prevents me from doing it". Mark Twain's "feeling and mistake it for thinking". There are a million of them, describing the dichotomy - which is the human condition. We're entitled to our opinions - even Alex Jones and Keith Olberman. It's a disservice to society that a media outlet would find either of them worthwhile. That they no longer separate fact from opinion, and give voice to the Hannities and Maddow (because there is profit in it) is the issue, and I would say bear the ethical responsibility if they're going to have legal/constitutional protections.

Anyway it's actually because I'm a military guy that I don't like McCain. His past is checkered, and I'll leave it at that for now.

I'm not a fan of Lewis, really. I think his novels pale to Tolkien's, and I disagree with a great deal of his views on Christianity. None of his service has any bearing on that, or whether or not there's a nugget of truth in his aphorism. That's always a weird thing to me, actually; that there's confusion on what gives credibility and what doesn't...

There's Conservative elitism as well. George Will is a great example, H.R. McMaster left quite a wake in TRADOC with letting people know how smart he is. He's a regular in the old guard think-tanks now.

I have concern for what the "correction" is. It remains to be seen which direction the pendulum will go, but the current administration is pushing it hard to the left. They promised to be centrist, I believe. This is how you give Trump a second term. Honestly, I don't want that either (although I am petty (a la: Ovid) enough to relish the schadenfreude).

[Chuck Naill]

No comment as I think you were thinking out loud.

There were other reasons to think Trump and his father were racist. It is a matter of history and not my personal bias. He's said and done plently for those that would look.

I've enjoyed George Will as well as David Brooks. Brooks recognizes what he calls the "Costal Elite". I've enjoyed Thomas Sowell writings. I cannot dismiss someone because they are well educated and think.

We can agree in not wanting a second term.

I am sure you cannot help let your military experiance have a sway. I have an ex Marine friend during Vietnam that is much more similar to my thinking. He doesn't go around saying semper fi and hoorah (or whatever) either.

[dneal]

Comment as you like.

There is plenty of evidence discounting Trump's supposed racism as well. What was he signing for HBCU's when all those black folks were gathered around in the Oval Office? What color was the grandmother he pardoned? Frankly, assertions of Trump's racism don't exist until he announced his candidacy. It's as stupid of an argument as that he's a misogynist. A woman ran his campaign. His two best press secretaries were women. Assertions of motive remain though, just like your "racist" assertions.

I don't dismiss people because they're well educated and think - although there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, in the case of your claim. I posted an informative video from two Ph.D. Evolutionary biologists that didn't raise a peep from you. They are the epitome of educated people who can think. Anyway, it's educated people who stop thinking - like George Will - that are disappointing and I ultimately dismiss. Their education is irrelevant when their reasoning faculties are compromised by their passions, the resulting vitriol (and assigning of motive) predictable. Someone who is well educated and stops thinking is an embarrassment usually, of their own making.

[Chuck Naill]

You don't like McCain or George Will both of whom were not Trump supporters. How much did this influence your opinion of them? It is ironic that before Trump, both were well respected amoung conservatives. Can you think of any conservative thinker that did not support Trump that is respected.

I don't need to "peep" just because you posted and especially video. I loathe having to watch videos. Just tell me what you want to say. I used to know a man that spent his days watch Fox News and YouTube videos. All he knew how to do was post a video. It shows a degree of laziness. There are times it seems your writing style changes and I think you're copying and pasting without footnotes.

Ironically, you do show your emotions quite frequently. Odd that you dismiss others for doing the same. I mean, often we all do what we dislike for others to do.

Regarding George Will's opinion on the Republican Party.
""Whatever populism is conservatism isn't," Will said. "Populism believes that everything is clear, known to the public and should be directed into the policy and not be refined in the Constitution. That is the antithesis of conservatism."

"There is no place for conservatism in the Republican Party right now because we have an absolutely unique situation," Will said. "We a we have a Republican Party who are -- they won't say this -- are frightened of their voters, and because they're frightened of them, they don't much like them. Because they don't like them, they don't respect them. It's a very tension-ridden relationship between the Republican's elected officials and the Republican base. Until the Republican Party gets back to something like the principles that made it a vibrant force in the '80s and '90s, conservatives are, as I say, orphans."
https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/trumps-gop/

[dneal]

Trump broke the media. Maybe he just made them so crazy they ended up exposing themselves for who they were. George Will, Peggy Noonan, and any of the other "old guard" GOP types get my sympathy. The polite and carefully structured society they took for granted was turned on its head. Prior to Trump, it was only the Democrats that were crazy.

Everyone always knew it was pandering to the poor for votes, but it went too far during the Obama era. It didn't help that he had zero experience doing really anything and he was surrounded by ideologues (like every other President is). Shovel-ready jobs and even the Affordable Care Act are worthy of debate. They weren't debated. They were forced through on a very partisan and close vote. There's the whole debacle of Robert's opinion regarding the ACA "tax", and the reasonable criticism that earned. We can argue various "pivotal" points in American politics, but the Obama admin was certainly one.

There was pushback for the second term, but they continued on as best they could as they lost their majority in the Senate. A lot of contentious agendas were pushed through with "a phone and a pen". The Tea Party rose in opposition (mainly to spending). It was hijacked by the professional political class, and investigated by Obama's IRS. AOC's and the rest of "The Squad" are particularly inciteful. The radical left (Occupy, BLM, Antifa, etc...) was literally encouraged by them. Nancy feared for her job because of the upstart Latina from the block. The old guard of the Democrat party is also in the position of George Will. Their polite and carefully structured society was turned on its head too.

Obama and Co pushed the pendulum so far, we ended up with Trump as the Newtonian answer. Everyone egged him on. Begged him to run for President. It was the best ratings (and profit) the media had seen in years. No one expected him to win, because all those "old-guard" types had stopped paying attention to anything outside their G street bubble. They misunderestimated the country. Their beloved pollsters were wrong. People were pissed off, said fuck it and pulled the lever for Trump. They weren't "Trumpists". They were people who said "fuck you" to the sort of people who happily labeled them a "basket of deplorables". Progressive Democrats gave us Trump, and will again if they keep up the shenanigans we've seen so far with the current admin.

You should listen to crazy Steve Bannon. He's not dumb, and he makes many critical points. He's an ideologue too, and like I noted earlier - Presidents get surrounded by ideologues. Steve Bannon (and KellyAnne Conway) put their fingers on the pulse of the nation and understood what the pollsters, George Wills, etc... didn't. And they got Trump elected pretty damned handily.

Just professional reading, I've read Jomini, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Marx and Mao; to scratch the surface. I can see the brilliance in Mao's theory of insurgency. I think it's more clever, practical and effective than anything Sun Tzu ever wrote. It's why our parading around the globe fighting insurgencies is a waste of time - but I digress...

I listen to Bannon just as I read any other strategist. Again, he's not dumb. Read his bio. He is dismissed as a (insert your preferred motive-label) at the peril of the dismisser. I know why they do it too, because his arguments make quite a bit of sense and they resonate. It's another variation of class warfare, and it pits the "common man" against the "Davos elite". Where critical race nonsense is ever subdividing people into smaller and opposing tribes, Bannon's philosophy unites everyone against what Eric Weinstein calls the "Kleptocracy". It's a conservative version of Marx, to an extent. It simply advocates smaller government instead of an all-providing entity. It recognizes human nature. Listen carefully to his idea of "Economic Nationalism", and listen objectively. Even if you disagree with him with every fiber of your being, it still pays to critically examine the argument.

It's a shame you don't listen to intelligent people converse, just because it's on YouTube. You do know you don't have to watch, right? You can just listen as you do something else. Maybe you should reexamine who is lazy? Intellectually speaking, of course. I see it as efficient. Your mileage may vary.

[dneal]

You don't like McCain or George Will both of whom were not Trump supporters. How much did this influence your opinion of them? It is ironic that before Trump, both were well respected amoung conservatives. Can you think of any conservative thinker that did not support Trump that is respected.

I don't need to "peep" just because you posted and especially video. I loathe having to watch videos. Just tell me what you want to say. I used to know a man that spent his days watch Fox News and YouTube videos. All he knew how to do was post a video. It shows a degree of laziness. There are times it seems your writing style changes and I think you're copying and pasting without footnotes.

Ironically, you do show your emotions quite frequently. Odd that you dismiss others for doing the same. I mean, often we all do what we dislike for others to do.

Regarding George Will's opinion on the Republican Party.
""Whatever populism is conservatism isn't," Will said. "Populism believes that everything is clear, known to the public and should be directed into the policy and not be refined in the Constitution. That is the antithesis of conservatism."

"There is no place for conservatism in the Republican Party right now because we have an absolutely unique situation," Will said. "We a we have a Republican Party who are -- they won't say this -- are frightened of their voters, and because they're frightened of them, they don't much like them. Because they don't like them, they don't respect them. It's a very tension-ridden relationship between the Republican's elected officials and the Republican base. Until the Republican Party gets back to something like the principles that made it a vibrant force in the '80s and '90s, conservatives are, as I say, orphans."
https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/trumps-gop/

I just want to point out that the majority of this post is just characterization and ascribing motive. Trying to make it personal. You pick the petty fights, Chuck. That's what makes you boring to me. There's so much more interesting stuff to argue about. I've already rolled around in the mud with you. I concede your tenacity. Like I said, it got boring.

I don't think you are capable of anything else. You would have to step out of your echo-chamber. Prove me wrong, if you like.

--edit--

Oh, the thing you don't get is the distinction of emotion and its affect on bias. It's ok to have emotions. It's ok to have bias. I can admit mine, and include the idea that it could weight a viewpoint. When you can't do that, when you see everything through the emotional lens of "TRUMPIST!!!" - as you characterized the Slovenian for espousing a reasonable view that you have been told is heretical - when you grab your torch and pitchfork of motive-labels; you might not be recognizing your emotion fueled bias. That's why you're in an echo chamber, and don't get the distinction. It's not allowed in your head.

[TSherbs]

What a fucking a-hole troll.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

You don't like McCain or George Will both of whom were not Trump supporters. How much did this influence your opinion of them? It is ironic that before Trump, both were well respected amoung conservatives. Can you think of any conservative thinker that did not support Trump that is respected.

I don't need to "peep" just because you posted and especially video. I loathe having to watch videos. Just tell me what you want to say. I used to know a man that spent his days watch Fox News and YouTube videos. All he knew how to do was post a video. It shows a degree of laziness. There are times it seems your writing style changes and I think you're copying and pasting without footnotes.

Ironically, you do show your emotions quite frequently. Odd that you dismiss others for doing the same. I mean, often we all do what we dislike for others to do.

Regarding George Will's opinion on the Republican Party.
""Whatever populism is conservatism isn't," Will said. "Populism believes that everything is clear, known to the public and should be directed into the policy and not be refined in the Constitution. That is the antithesis of conservatism."

"There is no place for conservatism in the Republican Party right now because we have an absolutely unique situation," Will said. "We a we have a Republican Party who are -- they won't say this -- are frightened of their voters, and because they're frightened of them, they don't much like them. Because they don't like them, they don't respect them. It's a very tension-ridden relationship between the Republican's elected officials and the Republican base. Until the Republican Party gets back to something like the principles that made it a vibrant force in the '80s and '90s, conservatives are, as I say, orphans."
https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/trumps-gop/

I just want to point out that the majority of this post is just characterization and ascribing motive. Trying to make it personal. You pick the petty fights, Chuck. That's what makes you boring to me. There's so much more interesting stuff to argue about. I've already rolled around in the mud with you. I concede your tenacity. Like I said, it got boring.

I don't think you are capable of anything else. You would have to step out of your echo-chamber. Prove me wrong, if you like.

--edit--

Oh, the thing you don't get is the distinction of emotion and its affect on bias. It's ok to have emotions. It's ok to have bias. I can admit mine, and include the idea that it could weight a viewpoint. When you can't do that, when you see everything through the emotional lens of "TRUMPIST!!!" - as you characterized the Slovenian for espousing a reasonable view that you have been told is heretical - when you grab your torch and pitchfork of motive-labels; you might not be recognizing your emotion fueled bias. That's why you're in an echo chamber, and don't get the distinction. It's not allowed in your head.

I am not trying to prove you wrong. After your comments regarding race, it would take too much time, plus, your're not willing at this point to self educate. I mean, it makes no difference to you if everyone knows you're illiterate regarding some topics as long as you feel safe in your narrow, little room with a myopic view. The world is passing you by. It has passed Trump by. It passed other ideologes by as soon as it was safe to do so.

So, you set up a standard, out of context of course, for not discussing motive. It's your standard for which I have no interest in upholding. If you had the capacity of a freshman in HS to study Trump, you would have to agree with George Will and John McCain. However, you've completely sold out to Trump's philosophy to the point that if you were to publically disagree with him it would alter your soul.

Like I said, I am happy with my position. I can sleep at night knowing I never voted, and yes I had the balls to vote, for him.

BTW, we now know what kind a person Mike Pence was. He was actually going to try to overturn the election. We should be honoring Dan Quayle.

[Chuck Naill]

What a fucking a-hole troll.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Him, me, or Bannon???LOL!!!

[TSherbs]

"him"

The douche bag who invited you into conversations, and then calls you "boring" because you question his objectivity and won't "argue."

Oh, Bannon, too, of course. But Bannon isn't posting his tripe here.





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

There were other reasons to think Trump and his father were racist. It is a matter of history and not my personal bias. He's said and done plently for those that would look.

Yes, I have pointed these out on other threads (going back long before the big orange racist baby ran for president.) The feds, for example, charged both men in the 1970s with racially discriminatory business practices. The central Park five affair was in late 80s-early 90s. The birther bullshit came in 2008, but simply continued the pattern of racism and race-baiting

Whatever.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

. We should be honoring Dan Quayle.

I follow your point, but ..... NO.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

"him"

The douche bag who invited you into conversations, and then calls you "boring" because you question his objectivity and won't "argue."

Oh, Bannon, too, of course. But Bannon isn't posting his tripe here.





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

On the contrary, i said I found the obnoxious asshole game boring. You guys win. I give up. Chuck at least seems willing to move on. I’m not positive, and am basing my opinion on his posts to others, in other threads as well.

You seem to be content with obnoxious asshole. I don’t really care.

[Chuck Naill]

No one is trying to win @dneal. You keep communicating you think it is a game. It is not for me. I do not for one minute think you can I will agree about some topics, but when you make a comment as you did about race in the US, it tells me you are leaning on past perceptions and not self educating to determine if your opinions are evidenced based. I am assming you are white. Instead of considering what I said, you immediately returned to your military experienced to say you slept and worked beside black and brown skin people. The military is not real life where you make decisions on your own. In the real world you reach out to people different from you to learn and know because it was something you think is important.

It has been the same with Trump and the pandemic, always resorting to defending him even if it means defaming people like George Will or worse John McCain. You seem to have to beat up and destroy. Maybe a game is how you approach life. It isn't for me and perhaps not @Tsherbs.

All this said, I do think you actually want to be here because you keep coming back. Perhaps we can find a way to communicate. And, I am not saying I communicate well. I am willing to change.

[dneal]

Chuck, when your posts consist of "I read some stuff, you're wrong and need to educate yourself because I don't have time"; there's not a lot to discuss after that. Look at your text:

After your comments regarding race, it would take too much time, plus, your're not willing at this point to self educate. I mean, it makes no difference to you if everyone knows you're illiterate regarding some topics as long as you feel safe in your narrow, little room with a myopic view. The world is passing you by. It has passed Trump by. It passed other ideologes by as soon as it was safe to do so.

This is not the first time you've said something like this. So why do you bother? Are you incapable of simply describing your thesis and supporting points? because that's the case here. You simply assert woke dogma, dust your hands off and consider it job done.

So, you set up a standard, out of context of course, for not discussing motive. It's your standard for which I have no interest in upholding. If you had the capacity of a freshman in HS to study Trump, you would have to agree with George Will and John McCain. However, you've completely sold out to Trump's philosophy to the point that if you were to publically disagree with him it would alter your soul.

Not the case. I introduced the motive discussion, and the context. I cannot take it out of a context that didn't exist until I established it. You keep attempting to move the goal posts to score a point. It's obvious and pathetic, much like how you co-opt my criticisms of you. I honestly believe you are incapable of rational discussion that does not comport with your dogma. Who saw the troll bait thread and rushed to it, when another more thoughtful topic was available?

You, TSherbs, EoC and others here love to present an appearance of smug moral superiority - which gets exposed as a facade as soon as I trigger you. The base vitriol gushes forth.

So what did you think of Bannon's description of "Economic Nationalism"?

--edit--

RE: George Will, etc...

The problem is that you seem to view things as simple dichotomies. Motive is good or bad. Emotion is good or bad. That's lazy thinking. We all have motive and emotion. It influences/biases us. It carries weight. "The final appeal is to intuition", as Whitehead said. We can attempt to be cognizant of them and not let them overrule our reason.

That's what George Will and a whole lot of others have done. They've let their hatred for Trump overrule their reason. They employ their reason to justify their emotion, and write thoroughly about it every week. They assign motive and use their intellect to reinforce a motive argument. They, like you, ignore the policy itself. Motive is sufficient, emotionally satisfying, and rationally acceptable. It's still lazy thinking.

I can think that about George Will, or John McCain. I can find it reasonable, based on empirical observation of their public life over decades, to see a change in behavior and assign a probable motive. I'm also perfectly comfortable knowing I might be mistaken. I don't evaluate policy based on my personal opinion. Is that so hard for you to understand? Really it's just simple objectivity... so I suppose it's impossible for you to understand right now - because you're in an echo chamber.

That's what makes you and George Will boring. Blah, blah, blah, Trumpists are racist Nazi's, blah blah blah... It's everybody though. Hannity, Maddow, and all the others I've listed before as you make no attempt to consider and respond. You just spin your rolodex of propaganda and blurt out the canned response - and don't even know you're doing it. It's why we're back to this.

What did you think about Bannon's notion of "Economic Nationalism"? That's an idea. Something that can be pondered and discussed. There is no right or wrong, just pros and cons. Or we just dismiss it as racist or whatever vileness TSherbs can come up with next (and seriously dude, if the internet or something else is making you this angry and uncomposed, perhaps you should take a break)... That's exactly why I picked Bannon. Because he is triggering to some, for god knows what reason. He's just a person. He has a point of view. It is amazing that simply the thought of an individual human with a different point of view, would prompt the responses we have seen so far.

Isn't discussing an idea much more interesting than who the bigger doo-doo head is?

[Chuck Naill]

I could have wasted my time to have provided a list of the books I read. I did however tell you the books are a part of the US library system. I can’t be your source. It’s a road you must decide on your own. Learning requires a certain amount of rigor on the learners part.

Please don’t feel you need to defend yourself.

Reading your posts reminds me of a former friend who watches Fox News and YouTube anti vaccine videos 24/7. You both say the same things.

People change gradually. Give yourself time, but resist confirmation bias. It just prolongs the process.

Or, stay the same as you are now as it won’t effect me one way or another.

[dneal]

I could have wasted my time to have provided a list of the books I read. I did however tell you the books are a part of the US library system. I can’t be your source. It’s a road you must decide on your own. Learning requires a certain amount of rigor on the learners part.

Please don’t feel you need to defend yourself.

Reading your posts reminds me of a former friend who watches Fox News and YouTube anti vaccine videos 24/7. You both say the same things.

People change gradually. Give yourself time, but resist confirmation bias. It just prolongs the process.

Or, stay the same as you are now as it won’t effect me one way or another.

Chuck "the books I need to read are part of the US library system" is nonsensical. Ok. What you need to read is part of the Library of Congress. I win.

As for the rest, you still avoid the topic. You avoid substance. Maybe that's how much was contained in your books? You just assign motive. Boring.

Are you capable of substance?

[Chuck Naill]

So, on my journey, I went to the library. I would hear of a book, then check it out. It was a years long process. I was not enrolled in a class. This is the essential self education. Then you decide which you think made a contribution.

If I were making suggestions, I would start with three or so biological books regarding MLK. I would read Haley’s book on Malcome Little.
Definitely read Souls of Black Folk.

If you are asking if I will feed you baby food, as I said before, neither the time or inclination. Man up, boy!!