Live Feed, Patriots at the Capitol

[Tombs]

I think that both cases are from a perspective of superiority. White left wing racists assume Blacks need saved because they're incapable of making their own success without them.

White right wing racists--Kut labeled it as "blame", and I'm still not sure that's quite right. There is that, but it's more distrust than just blame. I think it's more because Black people look physically different and have a different culture. There's a human nature that instinctively distrusts difference.

I'm not so sure that distrust is unjustified given the events of 2020. There's a strong double standard enforced from the top down to the bottom up that says one side can do no wrong.

And if you're white, society has decided that no matter what happens to you in that interaction, you were the one in the wrong.

Is that ultimately a race thing? I don't think it is, it's just the rules of the game we're thrown into.

 

[buckwacker]

It's Friday, so no arguing from me (and it's pointless), but the KKK part... this movie is an absolute gem.
And if those people can be friends and converse, then there's hope even liberals and conservatives can converse.



It looks like it's on Amazon Prime

I think conservatives are willing to converse with liberals, but generally it's not reciprocal, at least for leftists. Leftist are very uncomfortable being confronted with alternative points of view, in my opinion, because their ideas are easily refuted. Any sort of back and forth generally exposes those weaknesses and they desperately want to avoid that happening. That's why we've arrived at this point in our country where the left has co-opted much of the means by which we would normally have these discussions today in an effort suppress dissenting voices, all justified by a perverted argument that they are protecting the masses from disinformation and dangerous ideas.

 

[jamil]

I don't know, man. I think all categories of people are vulnerable to all kinds of broken ideologies.

Some folks get broken by their experiences and it causes them to not think straight. Some folks are just broken NIB.

Sure. Broken doesn't mean racist though. Candice Owens: Not a racist as far as I can tell. Worst case an opportunist.

 

[Tombs]

I think conservatives are willing to converse with liberals, but generally it's not reciprocal, at least for leftists. Leftist are very uncomfortable being confronted with alternative points of view, in my opinion, because their ideas are easily refuted. Any sort of back and forth generally exposes those weaknesses and they desperately want to avoid that happening. That's why we've arrived at this point in our country where the left has co-opted much of the means by which we would normally have these discussions today in an effort suppress dissenting voices, all justified by a perverted argument that they are protecting the masses from disinformation and dangerous ideas.

It's intellectual laziness for the sake of virtue signaling. If you challenge their virtue signaling, you're taking them down a peg on the societal order, so they lose their mind as that's the only thing they care about in life.

I think this is important to remember, because they don't care about the issues. They care about having the view that gains them the most societal currency. Most have significant trouble even articulating their beliefs.

 

[spencer rifle]

It's intellectual laziness for the sake of virtue signaling. If you challenge their virtue signaling, you're taking them down a peg on the societal order, so they lose their mind as that's the only thing they care about in life.

I think this is important to remember, because they don't care about the issues. They care about having the view that gains them the most societal currency. Most have significant trouble even articulating their beliefs.

Mark Steyn interprets Erich Fromm:
"What this means is that preservation of the collective whole of automaton conformity becomes the most important duty of each person involved. Without the constant fuel provided by the conformist whole itself, all the new identities would collapse. Ailing modern man would find himself right back where he started—in pain, and alone.

As a result, members of the whole all perceive any appearance of any non-conformity—any free thinking, for example—as a clear and present danger to themselves. Each expression of non-conformity must be exterminated by any means necessary. No sense of fairness or proportion obtains; no specific protocol applies. The only thing that matters is preventing a return to the original distress. That requires the ruthless, collective enforcement of automaton conformity.

This enforcement begins within. Each member seeks to identify and exterminate thought crimes within himself as effectively as possible, even before scouring the world outside.

After all, if tolerated, the non-conformist thoughts within might grow. Quickly enough, they would dissolve the new identity. Expulsion from the group would occur. The distress would return.

Moreover, if shared, non-conformist thoughts would poison others and destroy the collective whole. That in turn would destroy all the identities dependent upon it. Everything would fall apart. Eternal vigilance—and instant, ruthless extermination of any threat, no matter how small—is the means to prevent psychological, emotional, spiritual agony. Toleration cannot be tolerated."

 

[JettaKnight]

I think conservatives are willing to converse with liberals, but generally it's not reciprocal, at least for leftists. Leftist are very uncomfortable being confronted with alternative points of view, in my opinion, because their ideas are easily refuted. Any sort of back and forth generally exposes those weaknesses and they desperately want to avoid that happening. That's why we've arrived at this point in our country where the left has co-opted much of the means by which we would normally have these discussions today in an effort suppress dissenting voices, all justified by a perverted argument that they are protecting the masses from disinformation and dangerous ideas.

You sound like a married couple in counseling - "I'm willing to talk, but she isn't!" ... followed by the attitude of, "She needs to be more like me."

Conversing isn't just about disputing arguments - it's about listening to understand what a person believes and why. Darrell didn't get people to leave the Klan because he won arguments, it's because he was willing to listen and be accepting of a person where they are at that point in their life. You can't force someone to change, and you can't convince them to change if unless there's some trust.

Hence the problem with the internet arguments - it's not about relationships, just winning.

 

[JettaKnight]

Mark Steyn interprets Erich Fromm:
"What this means is that preservation of the collective whole of automaton conformity becomes the most important duty of each person involved. Without the constant fuel provided by the conformist whole itself, all the new identities would collapse. Ailing modern man would find himself right back where he started—in pain, and alone.

As a result, members of the whole all perceive any appearance of any non-conformity—any free thinking, for example—as a clear and present danger to themselves. Each expression of non-conformity must be exterminated by any means necessary. No sense of fairness or proportion obtains; no specific protocol applies. The only thing that matters is preventing a return to the original distress. That requires the ruthless, collective enforcement of automaton conformity.

This enforcement begins within. Each member seeks to identify and exterminate thought crimes within himself as effectively as possible, even before scouring the world outside.

After all, if tolerated, the non-conformist thoughts within might grow. Quickly enough, they would dissolve the new identity. Expulsion from the group would occur. The distress would return.

Moreover, if shared, non-conformist thoughts would poison others and destroy the collective whole. That in turn would destroy all the identities dependent upon it. Everything would fall apart. Eternal vigilance—and instant, ruthless extermination of any threat, no matter how small—is the means to prevent psychological, emotional, spiritual agony. Toleration cannot be tolerated."

Are you talking about liberals, or banning Kut?

 

[churchmouse]

I don't think that the party makes the racist. I think the personality does. It's just that the personality also tends to predict party affiliation as well. As I said, the blue-collar, often called blue-dog Democrats are actually conservatives in many ways. They split pretty heavily for Trump. They've been traditionally Democrat because Democrats used to cater to the working man. Since "wokeness" came along, Democrats call them toxic. So when working class Democrats are racist, it's not the "White savior" type. But now working class people have largely dropped the Democratic party as it no longer represents them.

Something interesting maybe. Tho party affiliation doesn't predict if a person IS a racist, I guess maybe it can predict what kind of racist it is if the person is one. But there is a party affiliation that I think predicts NOT a racist very accurately. Black Republicans. I can't begin to assign a percentage, but I'd wager that it's approaching 100% not a racist if you're a card carrying Black Republican. Any Democrat can be a racist regardless of their own race. Any White Republican can be. Black Republican? Uh, I don't think so. Though they might not care much for Messicans. I dunno.

I can make no arguments in this.
there seems to be a Cold War with occasional skirmish between the Hispanic and blacks. Seen it 1st hand and being surrounded by the Hispanic culture it is sometimes a point of discussion.

 

[churchmouse]

That was over 20 years ago. Do you see any real KKK/White supremacist today identifying with the Ds? They are in your face the party of everything those people hate.

Truth. But those people are still active just more covertly.
that’s my whole point. In the real world they do not stand out. I went to lunch all the time with the men I refer to and you never knew. We were mostly HVAC tradesmen. Never was approached or had their beliefs shoved in my face. Trust me my friend. They are still here.

 

[Tombs]

You sound like a married couple in counseling - "I'm willing to talk, but she isn't!" ... followed by the attitude of, "She needs to be more like me."

Conversing isn't just about disputing arguments - it's about listening to understand what a person believes and why. Darrell didn't get people to leave the Klan because he won arguments, it's because he was willing to listen and be accepting of a person where they are at that point in their life. You can't force someone to change, and you can't convince them to change if unless there's some trust.

Hence the problem with the internet arguments - it's not about relationships, just winning.

I don't think you understand the reason for those beliefs and why it's difficult if not impossible to even have a conversation.

You think it's just people holding a belief of their own without realizing it's a societal collective, and the reason for that belief system is coercion into it, with extreme consequences for even considering stepping outside of it.

I think you'd do well to talk to some devout Jehovah's Witnesses, to get a bit of perspective on that kind of coercive collective belief system.

The person may not even believe in the system they promote, but they know if they attempt to escape it that they will be unpersoned.
There's a little of that on the conservative side but it's mostly down to one or 2 single issues, like support for israel.

 

[jamil]

I think conservatives are willing to converse with liberals, but generally it's not reciprocal, at least for leftists. Leftist are very uncomfortable being confronted with alternative points of view, in my opinion, because their ideas are easily refuted. Any sort of back and forth generally exposes those weaknesses and they desperately want to avoid that happening. That's why we've arrived at this point in our country where the left has co-opted much of the means by which we would normally have these discussions today in an effort suppress dissenting voices, all justified by a perverted argument that they are protecting the masses from disinformation and dangerous ideas.

I think that's generally true for a certain segment on the left. But individual to individual that has not been my experience. Even woke people will try to debate you on some topics. If they're in a group though, they'll use the typical tactics that shut down conversation. Like they'll say something to the effect that they don't want to give bad arguments light of day. Publicly, the influencers will say they don't want to give <insert marginalizing pejorative> a platform.

 

[jamil]

You sound like a married couple in counseling - "I'm willing to talk, but she isn't!" ... followed by the attitude of, "She needs to be more like me."

Conversing isn't just about disputing arguments - it's about listening to understand what a person believes and why. Darrell didn't get people to leave the Klan because he won arguments, it's because he was willing to listen and be accepting of a person where they are at that point in their life. You can't force someone to change, and you can't convince them to change if unless there's some trust.

Hence the problem with the internet arguments - it's not about relationships, just winning.

Well, he's right in terms of the public square between influencers on each side. Progressives mostly won't engage. Ever hear the podcast debate between Ezra Klein and Sam Harris? Harris is a liberal, but he's quite willing to engage anyone in a serious debate. He had a twitter war with Klein long before and invited Klein to talk on his podcast. Finally Klein agreed to do it. It was a fiasco. Klein rarely responded to Sam's actual points, he just made generally marginalizing statements.

So while I'd say that it's wrong to say that liberals won't debate conservatives, it's pretty spot on to say that progressive woke people generally won't engage in discussions, especially public discussions, with the people they disagree with, except to marginalize them.

Tombs is also correct. Wokeness is a cult and you can't really talk to cultists in a critical way. They're given plenty of rhetorical tools to shut down discussions.

 

[BugI02]

All this squabbling is not so much about Babbit as it is about disparate treatment of Babbit vs the treatment of the left, the left, the left (not the)right, left.....right?

How about the next time some jack*** throws a molotov at a person, occupied structure or occupied vehicle, the cops put one in their head? No checking for race, sex, political party or preferred pronouns, do not pass go.

Would that satisfy all you guys? Works for me.

This^^^^ The RoE should be uniform and theatre-wide

 

[buckwacker]

You sound like a married couple in counseling - "I'm willing to talk, but she isn't!" ... followed by the attitude of, "She needs to be more like me."

Conversing isn't just about disputing arguments - it's about listening to understand what a person believes and why. Darrell didn't get people to leave the Klan because he won arguments, it's because he was willing to listen and be accepting of a person where they are at that point in their life. You can't force someone to change, and you can't convince them to change if unless there's some trust.

Hence the problem with the internet arguments - it's not about relationships, just winning.

Ok? Maybe you've been through more marriage counseling than I have.

If one personally knows someone who resides on the other side of the political spectrum, there's more of a willingness to talk, though it's a toss up in my experience whether or not the lefty I'm having a political discussion with stomps off angry, after throwing in some ad hominem because they've found it difficult to defend their position. I've not seen that behavior exhibited as much by those on the right, but maybe I just know the more level headed conservatives.

 

[buckwacker]

I don't think you understand the reason for those beliefs and why it's difficult if not impossible to even have a conversation.

You think it's just people holding a belief of their own without realizing it's a societal collective, and the reason for that belief system is coercion into it, with extreme consequences for even considering stepping outside of it.

I think you'd do well to talk to some devout Jehovah's Witnesses, to get a bit of perspective on that kind of coercive collective belief system.

The person may not even believe in the system they promote, but they know if they attempt to escape it that they will be unpersoned.
There's a little of that on the conservative side but it's mostly down to one or 2 single issues, like support for israel.

I'd have to agree. Brings to mind an old story about an emperor and some new, fancy, magical clothes.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't think you understand the reason for those beliefs and why it's difficult if not impossible to even have a conversation.

You think it's just people holding a belief of their own without realizing it's a societal collective, and the reason for that belief system is coercion into it, with extreme consequences for even considering stepping outside of it.

I think you'd do well to talk to some devout Jehovah's Witnesses, to get a bit of perspective on that kind of coercive collective belief system.

You think I haven't talked to JWs? Their HQ has put a big X on my house, "Don't send anyone there!"

You'd be hard pressed to find a more coercively closed collective than the KKK... yet people have walked away.
A year or two ago we were talking about #walkaway in the context of liberal democrats.

There are people open to talking.


The question to ask yourself is, "am I willing to have an open minded discussion?" Can you listen to a bunch of woke leftist speech without getting overly judgemental?

The person may not even believe in the system they promote, but they know if they attempt to escape it that they will be unpersoned.
There's a little of that on the conservative side but it's mostly down to one or 2 single issues, like support for israel.

Little of that on the conservative side? What happens to people (and politicians) that defy Trump?

People on INGO accuse me and others, of all sorts of things in order to "unperson" us.
Politicians get stripped of their committees and silenced.
Solid Christians get boycotted for supporting the wrong politician.

What happens when a conservative says "black lives matter"?

 

[JettaKnight]

Well, he's right in terms of the public square between influencers on each side. Progressives mostly won't engage. Ever hear the podcast debate between Ezra Klein and Sam Harris? Harris is a liberal, but he's quite willing to engage anyone in a serious debate. He had a twitter war with Klein long before and invited Klein to talk on his podcast. Finally Klein agreed to do it. It was a fiasco. Klein rarely responded to Sam's actual points, he just made generally marginalizing statements.

So while I'd say that it's wrong to say that liberals won't debate conservatives, it's pretty spot on to say that progressive woke people generally won't engage in discussions, especially public discussions, with the people they disagree with, except to marginalize them.

Tombs is also correct. Wokeness is a cult and you can't really talk to cultists in a critical way. They're given plenty of rhetorical tools to shut down discussions.

The problem with that is two people are doing it for show (and money, and power). That's not two people sitting and talking over a delicious Hawaiian pizza.

 

[nonobaddog]

When talking with liberals it is good to give them a chance to talk about themselves.
Ask them "What the hell is wrong with you?"

 

[printcraft]

What happens when a conservative says "black lives matter"?

Whoa there partner... Who said they didn't in the first place?

That thinking is where the "problem" originates.

(NOTE: this is not a unpersoning response to you, please don't take it like that, it would make me feel like less of a person, personally.)

 

[JettaKnight]

Whoa there partner... Who said they didn't in the first place?

That thinking is where the "problem" originates.

(NOTE: this is not a unpersoning response to you, please don't take it like that, it would make me feel like less of a person, personally.)

Not going to get into a argument with you on that. You're smart enough to exactly what it means, and exactly what response it elicits.