Politics, civility, and you!

Sentagur said:

What you are saying is that your wife is not letting you have degenerate tranny sexy like you want to?

Click to expand...

This, death, and taxes are pretty much all you need to know in life.

Eww. So gross.

I'm glad I don't have to fuck ya.

Got dam degenerate.

If you can beat em, join em?

You are all faggots. Make a thread about civility in the politics thread, bemoan how good discussions are stunted by dogpileing and name calling, proceed to name call and dogpile in said thread. Faggotry level 9000+.

a_skeleton_03 said:

This isn't about the thread by the way. Just in general.

Click to expand...

sure, but as pointed out, the thread is a prime example of how it goes elsewhere

why the fuck would you shove metal through your cock

seriously, Gen X'ers such faggots

a_skeleton_03 said:

I think it's an example of the "dial it up to 11" but most of us still dial it up to 5-6 with real life friends.

Click to expand...

Yeah I can agree with that. Biggest problems I have with RL friends is people are so sure you mean to trap them with simple questions you can never get a simple answer. I couldn't get a friend to just admit 'the sun is bright' the other day. Not sure what needs to change with society to start to fix that tho.

I 100% welcome any serious debate that aims to change my option on anything, and if you ask almost anyone straight up if they will admit they do not know everything they respond 'of course', but as soon as you try to build a common framework to have the discussion its like you've challenged their manhood.

jihodj said:

feelsgoodman

Didn't even hurt. Not kidding.

Click to expand...

What happens when it rusts?

I'm late to the party, but oh well.

I wonder if what we are witnessing is a combination of a long-enduring two party system combined with ridiculous levels of people trying to be politically correct, failing, and then going full retard?

First, the two party system is incredibly polarizing. And looking at the history of the two parties, it has little to do with what people are actually voting for. For a while, the Democrats were the Christian right. Then it was the Republicans. The two party system simply means half the country is going to yell "NO" every time the other half yells "YES."

Take that, and mix in with it a couple generations where people tried way to hard to be careful not to offend everyone. Now people are over that, and they just want to say their piece, even if it is merely for the sake of being a contrarian.

In any case, I try to be civil, but all y'all fuck heads are wrong all the time.


I, for one, would welcome an increase in civility in political discourse in the entire world at the moment.

lurkingdirk said:

I'm late to the party, but oh well.

I wonder if what we are witnessing is a combination of a long-enduring two party system combined with ridiculous levels of people trying to be politically correct, failing, and then going full retard?

First, the two party system is incredibly polarizing. And looking at the history of the two parties, it has little to do with what people are actually voting for. For a while, the Democrats were the Christian right. Then it was the Republicans. The two party system simply means half the country is going to yell "NO" every time the other half yells "YES."

Take that, and mix in with it a couple generations where people tried way to hard to be careful not to offend everyone. Now people are over that, and they just want to say their piece, even if it is merely for the sake of being a contrarian.

In any case, I try to be civil, but all y'all fuck heads are wrong all the time.


I, for one, would welcome an increase in civility in political discourse in the entire world at the moment.

Click to expand...

No, what you're witnessing is something that only happens once or twice a century historically which is a major realignment of political parties. It's easy to have a skewed perspective for two reasons: 1) the internet amplifies minority opinions in a way that simply wasn't possible in previous centuries and 2) it simply hasn't happened for long time due to external factors, namely world wars and nuclear weapons, which caused otherwise fractious pieces of the old establishment to retain relevance far longer than they might otherwise have done. In short, it's probably overdue from at least WW2 to be honest, FDR is one scary precedent president. It went off half cocked in the 60s and we're left with democrats who aren't willing to defend liberal principles as long as the theocratic fascists happen to be brown.

I didn't vote for Trump. I did vote for Clinton. I wasn't happy about it, as I think each of them represents some of the worst qualities I'd like in a representative, but I still think Clinton was the superior choice. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't feel that I've been the target of a witch hunt or received any hostility at all for that, and I have not hidden my position. I don't post much, but I often post with the expectation of having a minority-held opinion, and so I come prepared to lay the foundation for my opinion rather than relying upon some unspoken "rightness" inherent to my argument from afar. When people do rely upon some nebulous, ill-defined assumption they deserve* contempt, regardless of their position.

That's not to say that every post I make is fully substantiated. If I'm understood correctly I don't bother to explain further. We all rely upon inherent assumptions to communicate. Ideological extremists simply operate under the false pretense that their far, far less common assumptions ARE common (SJWs, silent majority, etc.), usually thanks to a communication bubble of their own devising. Ideologues of that sort are often demonstrated to be incorrect by logic or hindsight, but the worst offenders will cling to these assumptions long after the fact because they never came to them with understanding in the first place.

This is the basis of the criticism "feels vs. facts", or "is-ought".


*In this case deserve is clearly analagous to "ought", and I violate Hume's Law while advocating for it.

David Hume said:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

Click to expand...