Is modern conservatism a threat to us?
ml1 said:
terp said:
In BCC's defense, it's not like this is a level playing field. I mean look at this thread. People can say all kinds of nasty stuff to Zoinks, BCC, and I as a matter of course. Yet, somehow ml1 goes away with his tail between his legs because he has his feelings hurt because of my "tone". And my "tone" that he took issue with seemed to be simply questioning his characterization of forming consensus around an international binding agreement via the Paris Accord a modest measure.
for what it's worth, I only suggested that you might consider your own tone when you complain about how others address you. you didn't agree, and think your tone is not condescending or dismissive. that's fine. we can agree to disagree.
if you guys want to know why I don't argue with you as much (or at all any more), it's not because I'm overly sensitive, or have my "tail between my legs," or that I can't take disagreement, or that you all "destroy" my arguments. In the threads on municipal issues, I argue all the time with people I don't agree with. And sometimes it's pointed.
but the reason I can't take some of these arguments on national politics is that they tend to go off on tangents that (in my opinion) aren't addressing the larger point that was being discussed. That's fine. Thread drift is part of the charm of a message board. But seven pages about Solyndra, and I don't feel the need to add my two cents.
IIRC I wasn't even addressing you when you said you 'had enough of my crap' and stopped all contact.
That was well before 'Solyndra', for which I don't blame you. I had to spend 5 pages explaining to people over and over again what the discussion was all about.
Without being sarcastic, I don't really care whether or not you respond to what I write. If you do respond with a one line insult you will not like what you get back. If you choose to have a mutually respectful discussion I can do that. If you choose not to get involved at all, that's your choice.
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
In BCC's defense, it's not like this is a level playing field. I mean look at this thread. People can say all kinds of nasty stuff to Zoinks, BCC, and I as a matter of course. Yet, somehow ml1 goes away with his tail between his legs because he has his feelings hurt because of my "tone". And my "tone" that he took issue with seemed to be simply questioning his characterization of forming consensus around an international binding agreement via the Paris Accord a modest measure.
for what it's worth, I only suggested that you might consider your own tone when you complain about how others address you. you didn't agree, and think your tone is not condescending or dismissive. that's fine. we can agree to disagree.
if you guys want to know why I don't argue with you as much (or at all any more), it's not because I'm overly sensitive, or have my "tail between my legs," or that I can't take disagreement, or that you all "destroy" my arguments. In the threads on municipal issues, I argue all the time with people I don't agree with. And sometimes it's pointed.
but the reason I can't take some of these arguments on national politics is that they tend to go off on tangents that (in my opinion) aren't addressing the larger point that was being discussed. That's fine. Thread drift is part of the charm of a message board. But seven pages about Solyndra, and I don't feel the need to add my two cents.
OK. Perhaps I misunderstood when you lectured me about my tone. Here's what I don't get. You guys are really hard on those that disagree with the prevailing opinions on this board. You are also really sensitive when they fight back. But, how *****ing boring would the soapbox threads be without disagreement? Isn't that what makes it interesting?
I agree that these threads go off on tangents. But IMO that's kind of cool too. Sometimes you don't understand the connections, but usually there is some kind of connection there. I take the bait all the time. This thread went from how Conservatives are dangerous(Though I don't believe I'm in the group being discussed I find that idea rather insulting and frankly dangerous), to a discussion of negative/positive rights, to the Paris Accords, then AGW and the 97% consensus claim, the certainty of AGW claims, to the legitimacy of the US Income Tax, to Flint MI water(PVW was totally fishing and I took the bait), to US Education, to Sovereign Immunity. Sprinkle in some personal insults, some mud slinging on experts, even to asking a prominent AGW activist for clarifications, Solyndra, what is good and proper discussion behavior. I could go on.
I may be crazy, but I find that to be incredibly interesting. I don't think we could sit in a room and have this discussion without coming to blows.
Meh. I'm probably crazy.
I think you lump everyone you disagree with together. I'm not saying I don't go out of line once in a while. But I think my tone is way more measured than many of the other people on this board. Yes, a lot of people are quick to call you "greedy" or "selfish" or some other epithet. But I'm almost 100% sure that it's never been me.
BCC said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
In BCC's defense, it's not like this is a level playing field. I mean look at this thread. People can say all kinds of nasty stuff to Zoinks, BCC, and I as a matter of course. Yet, somehow ml1 goes away with his tail between his legs because he has his feelings hurt because of my "tone". And my "tone" that he took issue with seemed to be simply questioning his characterization of forming consensus around an international binding agreement via the Paris Accord a modest measure.
for what it's worth, I only suggested that you might consider your own tone when you complain about how others address you. you didn't agree, and think your tone is not condescending or dismissive. that's fine. we can agree to disagree.
if you guys want to know why I don't argue with you as much (or at all any more), it's not because I'm overly sensitive, or have my "tail between my legs," or that I can't take disagreement, or that you all "destroy" my arguments. In the threads on municipal issues, I argue all the time with people I don't agree with. And sometimes it's pointed.
but the reason I can't take some of these arguments on national politics is that they tend to go off on tangents that (in my opinion) aren't addressing the larger point that was being discussed. That's fine. Thread drift is part of the charm of a message board. But seven pages about Solyndra, and I don't feel the need to add my two cents.
IIRC I wasn't even addressing you when you said you 'had enough of my crap' and stopped all contact.
That was well before 'Solyndra', for which I don't blame you. I had to spend 5 pages explaining to people over and over again what the discussion was all about.
Without being sarcastic, I don't really care whether or not you respond to what I write. If you do respond with a one line insult you will not like what you get back. If you choose to have a mutually respectful discussion I can do that. If you choose not to get involved at all, that's your choice.
I don't think I ever wrote "had enough of your crap." That's not usually my style.
but I will let you know why I don't usually respond. Because no matter what the topic, it seems like at some point we would end up arguing about the argument itself. I have no patience for that. I won't get baited into a tedious argument over the what the definition of "is" is.
I consider myself one of the more centrist-libertarian members of this board (definitely more than Zoinks is these days), but I'm aware of the limits of the philosophy, so on more than one occasion I've mentioned that you are Utopian, terp. I have a penchant for snark, especially where I see hyperbole, and I'm positive I've said some condescending s**t to you at some point and I apologize for that, but you have a philosophy and you're willing to stand up for it on this board time and again no matter how many times you're banned for it and I respect you for it, dude.
ml1 said:
I think you lump everyone you disagree with together. I'm not saying I don't go out of line once in a while. But I think my tone is way more measured than many of the other people on this board. Yes, a lot of people are quick to call you "greedy" or "selfish" or some other epithet. But I'm almost 100% sure that it's never been me.
There are those who I generally will not respond to on this board. But only because their behavior has been beyond the pale and it is clear they don't really want to discuss anything. There's really only 1 or 2.
I don't have a problem with your tone. I was just surprised you took issue with my tone considering what I endure regularly here. I don't think I was rude to you either.
I'm not sure I lump everyone together. But I can definitely see how you would have that impression. You should understand that since I'm in a distinct minority here(for the most part a minority of 1), I will post and come back to see many many responses from different angles at one time. So, it is sometimes difficult to keep it straight who is saying what.
But to me, most here would like to dictate more and more of our lives. I actually don't see that much difference between your run of the mill republican and democrat. They both want to grow the state. They both want to redistribute, limit our rights, etc.
I will say that there are those on this board that I wholeheartedly disagree with but yet I enjoy conversing with even when it gets heated. When we stick to the argument, it can be interesting and enjoyable.
fwiw, about 10 years ago, a guy on this board called me an ass, and said I was incredibly arrogant. At first I had no idea what he was talking about. (hey, I'm a nice guy!) But I went back and read some of my stuff, and I realized he had a point. I've tried to modify my tone to seem less "know-it-all" and try to make it clear what's my opinion and what is a fact. I don't always succeed. But I did get where the guy was coming from.
ridski said:
I consider myself one of the more centrist-libertarian members of this board (definitely more than Zoinks is these days), but I'm aware of the limits of the philosophy, so on more than one occasion I've mentioned that you are Utopian, terp. I have a penchant for snark, especially where I see hyperbole, and I'm positive I've said some condescending s**t to you at some point and I apologize for that, but you have a philosophy and you're willing to stand up for it on this board time and again no matter how many times you're banned for it and I respect you for it, dude.
Thanks ridski! I appreciate the kind words.
I never had a problem with you ridski. You are a great poster. One of the few that has me LOL on a regular basis...once or twice even when I was the target.
I definitely come across as more of an Anarchist than I am. Sometimes that is for effect. There are limits, and there probably will always be government of some form or another. I say that as someone who has deep respect for many Anarchists.
As I'm sure you know, we are really quite far from anything like Anarchy. So, I think this purist talk is really a rounding error. I find the purist angle more of a challenge. I mean hell. Why not think through how something that we've always relied on government for could work without government? I find that to be quite an interesting topic even if its probably never going to happen.
The best imagining of that I've seen is this:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-dispossessed
terp said:
I definitely come across as more of an Anarchist than I am. Sometimes that is for effect. There are limits, and there probably will always be government of some form or another. I say that as someone who has deep respect for many Anarchists.
As I'm sure you know, we are really quite far from anything like Anarchy. So, I think this purist talk is really a rounding error. I find the purist angle more of a challenge. I mean hell. Why not think through how something that we've always relied on government for could work without government? I find that to be quite an interesting topic even if its probably never going to happen.
ml1 said:
fwiw, about 10 years ago, a guy on this board called me an ass, and said I was incredibly arrogant. At first I had no idea what he was talking about. (hey, I'm a nice guy!) But I went back and read some of my stuff, and I realized he had a point. I've tried to modify my tone to seem less "know-it-all" and try to make it clear what's my opinion and what is a fact. I don't always succeed. But I did get where the guy was coming from.
I apologize if I came across as rude. I went back and looked, and maybe I'm just a tone deaf jackass but I don't really see it. Look, if you make a point I'll let you know. I think I do that. But if you are arguing to take away rights in a manner I see as irresponsible and minimizing the concern I'm going to make my case.
I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. If I do so on a regular basis, perhaps you should avoid engaging with me. `
I don't have hurt feelings.
Maybe it's just me. But I get a sense that you are frustrated that the rest of us are being too dense or too stubborn to understand what seems clear and obvious to you.
PVW said:
The best imagining of that I've seen is this:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-dispossessed
Read it many years ago and I recall mentioning it on MOL some years back.
ml1 said:
BCC said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
In BCC's defense, it's not like this is a level playing field. I mean look at this thread. People can say all kinds of nasty stuff to Zoinks, BCC, and I as a matter of course. Yet, somehow ml1 goes away with his tail between his legs because he has his feelings hurt because of my "tone". And my "tone" that he took issue with seemed to be simply questioning his characterization of forming consensus around an international binding agreement via the Paris Accord a modest measure.
for what it's worth, I only suggested that you might consider your own tone when you complain about how others address you. you didn't agree, and think your tone is not condescending or dismissive. that's fine. we can agree to disagree.
if you guys want to know why I don't argue with you as much (or at all any more), it's not because I'm overly sensitive, or have my "tail between my legs," or that I can't take disagreement, or that you all "destroy" my arguments. In the threads on municipal issues, I argue all the time with people I don't agree with. And sometimes it's pointed.
but the reason I can't take some of these arguments on national politics is that they tend to go off on tangents that (in my opinion) aren't addressing the larger point that was being discussed. That's fine. Thread drift is part of the charm of a message board. But seven pages about Solyndra, and I don't feel the need to add my two cents.
IIRC I wasn't even addressing you when you said you 'had enough of my crap' and stopped all contact.
That was well before 'Solyndra', for which I don't blame you. I had to spend 5 pages explaining to people over and over again what the discussion was all about.
Without being sarcastic, I don't really care whether or not you respond to what I write. If you do respond with a one line insult you will not like what you get back. If you choose to have a mutually respectful discussion I can do that. If you choose not to get involved at all, that's your choice.
I don't think I ever wrote "had enough of your crap." That's not usually my style.
but I will let you know why I don't usually respond. Because no matter what the topic, it seems like at some point we would end up arguing about the argument itself. I have no patience for that. I won't get baited into a tedious argument over the what the definition of "is" is.
I remember what you said because I wasn't even addressing you. If I'm mistaken I apologize.
Perhaps if you had to repeat over and over and over again to a number of people, sometimes to the same person, that the topic being discussed is ABC and they keep talking about XYZ you will end up discussing what the definition of is, is. and that becomes tedious but necessary – even when a group of
a$$holes use it as an excuse for ridicule.
if a number of people give you essentially the same feedback, you can either decide that none of them know what they're talking about, or you can give some consideration as to whether or not there's at least a kernel of truth in there. it's certainly possible that we "*******s" as you bluntly put it, are completely off base.
BCC said:
Perhaps if you had to repeat over and over and over again to a number of people, sometimes to the same person, that the topic being discussed is ABC and they keep talking about XYZ you will end up discussing what the definition of is, is. and that becomes tedious but necessary – even when a group of
a$$holes use it as an excuse for ridicule.
It is not "necessary" to argue with a fool. It's like what they say about wrestling with a pig. You both end up covered with mud and the pig likes it.
ml1 said:
I don't have hurt feelings.
Maybe it's just me. But I get a sense that you are frustrated that the rest of us are being too dense or too stubborn to understand what seems clear and obvious to you.
Good to hear on the hurt feelings thing.
I think its funny that so much of the focus of these discussions is on me. I'm not sure if I should be insulted or flattered. I mean there is quite a bit of outrage when I voice an opinion "ignorant, stupid, crazy, utopian" or what have you. And let's face it, even considering the conspiracy-theory like paranoia about the Koch brothers and this libertarianism pervading government, the ball is decidedly moving in your direction. More government intervention in health markets, labor markets, financial markets, etc. I mean we have a self-described Socialist with a semi-realistic chance of grabbing the Presidency!
I've been around a while. Certainly long enough to predict how people will react to things. People are actually quite predictable when it comes to politics. If something goes wrong, and things will go wrong no matter what, people will ask for more $$ and power(usually centralized) to be applied to this problem. This is true if the cause of the problem is the very thing that people want to throw more $$ and power at. While this doesn't surprise me, it certainly disappoints me. And yeah. I find it funny. But, better laugh then to cry.
I think the cycle is: Government takes power and violates rights to get this power. People cheer. These government interventions cause more problems than existed initially. Government takes more power and violates more rights. People cheer. Rinse and repeat. Look at the history of healthcare in this country. It is a great example.
Usually, I'd think "Well hey, its their lives. I mean they are adults. They will have to live with their poor decisions." The problem is that we all have to live with these decisions.
PVW said:
The best imagining of that I've seen is this:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-dispossessed
Maybe I'll give that a look. I usually read non-fiction. I know: How boring and tedious I am!
terp, your objection to government seems to reach an abstract level such that either it's meaningless or I just don't follow. Government sometimes botches things badly. There is no doubt about that. But so do all kinds of organizations. That doesn't make me think we should give up on governments or churches or clubs or companies or charities or any other groups of people. Without collective action, we couldn't build bridges or GPS systems or other things that we all want. Today, a story broke about abuse by a charity. Something should be done, but I won't advocate for the dismantlement of all charities.
Wounded Warrior Project Spends Lavishly on Itself, Insiders Say
I think the solution to bad action by government is to replace it with good action by government.
Tom_Reingold said:
terp, your objection to government seems to reach an abstract level such that either it's meaningless or I just don't follow. Government sometimes botches things badly. There is no doubt about that. But so do all kinds of organizations. That doesn't make me think we should give up on governments or churches or clubs or companies or charities or any other groups of people. Without collective action, we couldn't build bridges or GPS systems or other things that we all want. Today, a story broke about abuse by a charity. Something should be done, but I won't advocate for the dismantlement of all charities.
Wounded Warrior Project Spends Lavishly on Itself, Insiders Say
I think the solution to bad action by government is to replace it with good action by government.
People will make mistakes. ***** will always happen. I agree. However, when you centralize power when people mess up it tends to affect everybody.
In addition, I would contend that we'd more likely get better government if power were decentralized. We don't seem to be going in that direction.
I also don't believe government is necessary for collective action. This can be done spontaneously. Look at all the efforts to get bottled water to Flint. People are rallying around this issue. And without the proverbial gun pointed at them.
ml1 said:
if a number of people give you essentially the same feedback, you can either decide that none of them know what they're talking about, or you can give some consideration as to whether or not there's at least a kernel of truth in there. it's certainly possible that we "*******s" as you bluntly put it, are completely off base.
In the first place I did not refer to you as an a$$hole and if that's how you interpreted what I wrote you are wrong. As I told you, you remain civil, I remain civil.
In the second place If I write a half dozen times 'the only thing we are discussing is whether or not there is a conservative group of government bureaucrats sabotaging government projects' and some people keep responding by talking about 3 other things tangential to the issue, I have to wonder if they are being intentionally obtuse or have a problem understanding English.
It also is what makes a conversation go on endlessly about the argument.
LOST said:
BCC said:
Perhaps if you had to repeat over and over and over again to a number of people, sometimes to the same person, that the topic being discussed is ABC and they keep talking about XYZ you will end up discussing what the definition of is, is. and that becomes tedious but necessary – even when a group of
a$$holes use it as an excuse for ridicule.
It is not "necessary" to argue with a fool. It's like what they say about wrestling with a pig. You both end up covered with mud and the pig likes it.
I'm still a teacher. I can't leave them wandering around in ignorance.
terp said:
PVW said:
The best imagining of that I've seen is this:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-dispossessed
Maybe I'll give that a look. I usually read non-fiction. I know: How boring and tedious I am!
If you read it, I hope you enjoy it, but taste is a very subjective thing, and I hardly know you well enough to guess if you'll like it or not.
And actually, on that point, my feeling around tone and political discourse is to remember that people are not their political opinions. You and I clash frequently, often quite sharply, as is to be expected since our political philosophies are so profoundly at odds. I don't take anything you say personally, and I try very hard to keep my criticisms focused on your philosophy and not personal attacks. I'm sure it doesn't always feel that way (you called one of my posts "mean-spirited," which suggests my intent, and the way it was received, differed by quite a bit), but do rest assured that I have nothing personally against you. I try to avoid the obvious red lines - eg calling people stupid or evil - but when there's fundamental disagreement, there's no getting around the fact that each person believes the other is quite simply, deeply wrong.
Still working on the problem of how to honestly and deeply challenge a philosophy without making it feel like a personal attack. Maybe there is no answer, and deep disagreement just inherently feels bad - deeply held beliefs sure feel personal, and it's probably not much consolation when someone's attacking those to have them say "well, at least I'm not calling you stupid!"
But, what I was trying to say is that people are much more than their politics. Who knows, if we knew each other in person we might enjoy each others company. It's really hard to say when you only interact with people online, and even worse when that interaction is only in the context of sharp political disagreement. That's why it's nice to hang out in some of the non-political threads sometimes, and talk about, say, craft beer.
A few years ago, a select few who regularly post in All Politics met up in O'Reilly's and over a few beers and cocktails we all had (dare I say it) a good time. We poked a little fun at each other, but the mood was pleasant and we hardly talked about politics that much at all, really. We keep saying this, but we are definitely overdue for another one of these events, I think.
Edited to add: In other words, PVW, we are definitely more than our politics and more than our posts here in MOL no matter what the topic.
PVW said:
And actually, on that point, my feeling around tone and political discourse is to remember that people are not their political opinions. You and I clash frequently, often quite sharply, as is to be expected since our political philosophies are so profoundly at odds. I don't take anything you say personally, and I try very hard to keep my criticisms focused on your philosophy and not personal attacks. I'm sure it doesn't always feel that way (you called one of my posts "mean-spirited," which suggests my intent, and the way it was received, differed by quite a bit), but do rest assured that I have nothing personally against you. I try to avoid the obvious red lines - eg calling people stupid or evil - but when there's fundamental disagreement, there's no getting around the fact that each person believes the other is quite simply, deeply wrong.
Still working on the problem of how to honestly and deeply challenge a philosophy without making it feel like a personal attack. Maybe there is no answer, and deep disagreement just inherently feels bad - deeply held beliefs sure feel personal, and it's probably not much consolation when someone's attacking those to have them say "well, at least I'm not calling you stupid!"
But, what I was trying to say is that people are much more than their politics. Who knows, if we knew each other in person we might enjoy each others company. It's really hard to say when you only interact with people online, and even worse when that interaction is only in the context of sharp political disagreement. That's why it's nice to hang out in some of the non-political threads sometimes, and talk about, say, craft beer.
Well said. At the end of the day, we usually get over these things. I think I paid you a compliment earlier that you were passionate about your beliefs. You take the time to read and consider. While IMO you come to the wrong conclusions ;-) , I'm not sure I could give you a higher compliment than that. I mean I'd rather discuss matters with someone I disagree with who is well thought out and has done some research than someone with whom I agree but that hasn't really thought things through.
ridski said:
A few years ago, a select few who regularly post in All Politics met up in O'Reilly's and over a few beers and cocktails we all had (dare I say it) a good time. We poked a little fun at each other, but the mood was pleasant and we hardly talked about politics that much at all, really. We keep saying this, but we are definitely overdue for another one of these events, I think.
Edited to add: In other words, PVW, we are definitely more than our politics and more than our posts here in MOL no matter what the topic.
Yeah. That was fun. I remember while on my way there I didn't know what to expect.
ridski said:
A few years ago, a select few who regularly post in All Politics met up in O'Reilly's and over a few beers and cocktails we all had (dare I say it) a good time. We poked a little fun at each other, but the mood was pleasant and we hardly talked about politics that much at all, really. We keep saying this, but we are definitely overdue for another one of these events, I think.
Edited to add: In other words, PVW, we are definitely more than our politics and more than our posts here in MOL no matter what the topic.
I wasn't invited. that's ok. I've got my own friends.
One of the reasons why I never mentioned who organized it or who was actually there. 
ridski said:
One of the reasons why I never mentioned who organized it or who was actually there.
So it's like Fight Club?
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Nanny for newborn and 3 year old
May 19, 2024 at 10:03am
-
Companion and certified hha and Cna
May 19, 2024 at 6:53am
-
May 16, 2024 at 10:23am
-
May 15, 2024 at 2:26pm
-
May 15, 2024 at 2:26pm
Help Wanted
-
Front counter and pick/up delivery clerk
May 18, 2024 at 4:23pm
-
SOF609 Thurs & Fri Summer Nanny for 1 (early June - late August)
May 16, 2024 at 7:41pm
-
SF5003 FT Nanny for 1 (June Start)
May 15, 2024 at 9:22pm
-
FLF603 FT Nanny for 3 Under 2 (July Start)
May 15, 2024 at 4:30pm
-
PT Househelp/Housekeeping/ Meal prep
May 15, 2024 at 3:27pm
Lessons/Instruction
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
OK. Perhaps I misunderstood when you lectured me about my tone. Here's what I don't get. You guys are really hard on those that disagree with the prevailing opinions on this board. You are also really sensitive when they fight back. But, how *****ing boring would the soapbox threads be without disagreement? Isn't that what makes it interesting?
I agree that these threads go off on tangents. But IMO that's kind of cool too. Sometimes you don't understand the connections, but usually there is some kind of connection there. I take the bait all the time. This thread went from how Conservatives are dangerous(Though I don't believe I'm in the group being discussed I find that idea rather insulting and frankly dangerous), to a discussion of negative/positive rights, to the Paris Accords, then AGW and the 97% consensus claim, the certainty of AGW claims, to the legitimacy of the US Income Tax, to Flint MI water(PVW was totally fishing and I took the bait), to US Education, to Sovereign Immunity. Sprinkle in some personal insults, some mud slinging on experts, even to asking a prominent AGW activist for clarifications, Solyndra, what is good and proper discussion behavior. I could go on.
I may be crazy, but I find that to be incredibly interesting. I don't think we could sit in a room and have this discussion without coming to blows.
Meh. I'm probably crazy.