Civil War 2.0

[Valjean]

Why do you say Dems have moved to the right?
They've reversed their opposition to gay marriage.
Some now oppose the War On Drugs.
And some even oppose civil forfeiture abuse
(in opposition to Biden, who created it).

I've posted this before. Here are the platform points of the of the Republican party back when you and I were wee'uns:

1956 Republican Platform

Summary of 1956 Republican platform describes a significant divergence from the party's focus in recent decades?

www.snopes.com

Sounds pretty left-wing to me...

 

[Revoltingest]

I've posted this before. Here are the platform points of the of the Republican party back when you and I were wee'uns:

1956 Republican Platform

Summary of 1956 Republican platform describes a significant divergence from the party's focus in recent decades?

www.snopes.com

Sounds pretty left-wing to me...

My post was about Dems,
not Pubs.

 

[Father Heathen]

And what I point out no one can shoot back at an active shooter UNTIL they start stooting at victims. So how many victims fall before a "good guy with a gun" can get the gun out and loaded, and aim (assuming they can be in the clear and not be shot themselves) and shoot? Conservatives make it sound as if citizens don't mind being caught in a shootout. Jeez, even citizens in the 1870's wild west didn't want that and many towns banned guns.

A lot of them have wet dreams about pulling off Rambo/Dirty Harry style heroics; being so bad-*** that not even the limitations of reality can contain it.

 

[Valjean]

Is

Is not envisioning a catastrophic civil war the same as ignoring politics? Are you sure you’re not putting words in my mouth?

Isn't a "catastrophe" often a problem unanticipated and not prepared for?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Is

Isn't a "catastrophe" often a problem unanticipated and not prepared for?

Fair point. Let’s consciously not go down the path toward civil war. Perhaps the way to do that is to put the responsibility for avoiding major conflict on ourselves and not the other side.

 

[F1fan]

Fair point. Let’s consciously not go down the path toward civil war. Perhaps the way to do that is to put the responsibility for avoiding major conflict on ourselves and not the other side.

That responsibility can begin with the rejection of disinformation media sources. We can only have conversations with others when we are dealing with true information.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

That responsibility can begin with the rejection of disinformation media sources. We can only have conversations with others when we are dealing with true information.

It’s a deeper problem than this. There is mass ignorance and confusion about what truth is.

 

[Stevicus]

No, they tried, with presenters like Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman, and the the failed Air America radio network. Progressive shows still air, but their markets are limited and few are able to access their broadcasts directly.

Air America was a failed attempt. It doesn't seem they really tried hard enough. I recall here locally, Rush and some other right-wing jocks started showing up on the station with the news/talk format, though they weren't automatically right wing. There were other stations with more entertainment and sports focus which might have had more left-wing audiences, but they focused mostly on entertainment news and sports. There was a classic rock station which had more of a morning talk format, without much music during the morning hours. But what did they talk about? Fluff. Entertainment news. Celebrity gossip. They could have talked about politics, but they didn't. I also remember when Howard Stern was touted as a possible counter to Rush Limbaugh, but he was nothing but entertainment news and fluff.

The left simply lost their will to fight. They no longer had the belly for real politics.

It's true that the Democrats have been moving steadily to the right since the Reagan revolution 40 years ago. They thought they could increase support by abandoning their working and middle class base and targeting the professional class. This clearly failed. They have legitimate grievances, but, in the absence of Democratic support, the Republicans have managed to convince them that their woes stem from he left, and that their economic salvation will come from their actual oppressors, the Republicans.

The Republicans continue to hammer away at the "radical, left-wing extremists" ignoring the fact that they'd be considered moderate Republicans on the political spectrum of Reagan or Nixon's time.

Yes, that was a serious mistake the Democrats made. But they made similar mistakes back during the McCarthy era. They're far too sensitive to right-wing criticism of them being "radical, left-wing extremists" to the point where they fall all over themselves to try to appear moderate. So, they had to give support to the Vietnam War and other right-wing military adventurism. They had to give in to Reagan's ultra-capitalism and militarism, culminating in Michael Dukakis' infamous tank ride, just to prove that Democrats are just as tough and ready for war as the Republicans. Then Clinton sold out the working classes by surrendering to Republicans on free trade. They keep nominating lukewarm, milquetoast candidates so as to not rock the boat or upset the Republicans. They show themselves as weak and spineless, and that just by itself ends up losing them votes. Spineless cowards are not fit to lead.

 

[F1fan]

It’s a deeper problem than this. There is mass ignorance and confusion about what truth is.

Go on. What is the mass ignorance, and what is the primary cause?

And what do you think truth is? Where do you go for news?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Go on. What is the mass ignorance, and what is the primary cause?

And what do you think truth is? Where do you go for news?

In short, it’s more than whether or not facts correspond with world events. It’s about the framing, what’s omitted, etc. Moral truth is at least as relevant as factual truth, and moral truth is where the conflict and confusion is located.

 

[F1fan]

In short, it’s more than whether or not facts correspond with world events. It’s about the framing, what’s omitted, etc. Moral truth is at least as relevant as factual truth, and moral truth is where the conflict and confusion is located.

I take it you haven’t thought very deeply about these issues given this vague and short reply.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I take it you haven’t thought very deeply about these issues given this vague and short reply.

Truth is that which is in accordance with reality and reality includes moral reality.

Go ahead and try to best my definition..

 

[F1fan]

Truth is that which is in accordance with reality and reality includes moral reality.

Go ahead and try to best my definition..

Moral reality happens to follow everyone. How do you think ordinary Germans were convinced to commit the Holocaust if not morally correct? It was justified because Jews were subhuman, and this was a truth. It was Christians who committed the Holocaust, so the political morality was consistent with their religious morality. The one fly in the ointment was broader moral principles that assert all humans have rights to life, including Jews. Of course this same narrow moral reality happened with Native Americans, South American Tribes, Africans who were kidnapped and forced into slavery, etc. The morality follows the truth, and the truth is set by those who agree that it is. This is why truth needs a critical standard, not feelings, not tradition, not culture. Truth follows facts and a liberal set of principles.

So moral reality is a fuzzy concept if that is all you have.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Moral reality happens to follow everyone. How do you think ordinary Germans were convinced to commit the Holocaust if not morally correct? It was justified because Jews were subhuman, and this was a truth. It was Christians who committed the Holocaust, so the political morality was consistent with their religious morality. The one fly in the ointment was broader moral principles that assert all humans have rights to life, including Jews. Of course this same narrow moral reality happened with Native Americans, South American Tribes, Africans who were kidnapped and forced into slavery, etc. The morality follows the truth, and the truth is set by those who agree that it is. This is why truth needs a critical standard, not feelings, not tradition, not culture. Truth follows facts and a liberal set of principles.

So moral reality is a fuzzy concept if that is all you have.

Do you agree with the idea that it’s possible to act in accordance with reality? Can I act more in accordance with reality or less in accordance with reality?

 

[F1fan]

Do you agree with the idea that it’s possible to act in accordance with reality?

Do you think driving isn't reality? Or eating a steak? Or dancing? Or killing Jews? Or feeding the hungry? Everything we humans do IS reality, so to ask "is it possible" is absurd. We do it. What we do is real.

Now you can ask is it possible I will run another marathon, and if I will experience that reality, well, it's possible, but right now the answer is no. One is enough for me.

If your question meant something else, then your lack of clarity is your fault. Don' be afraid to use words. They're free.

 

[Bthoth]

There has been a lot of talk about a potential "civil war" resulting from the political and cultural divide in the U.S.

How do people envision this actually unfolding and playing out, realistically?

Charles Manson had the same idea. See Helter Skelter (the book)

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Do you think driving isn't reality? Or eating a steak? Or dancing? Or killing Jews? Or feeding the hungry? Everything we humans do IS reality, so to ask "is it possible" is absurd. We do it. What we do is real.

Now you can ask is it possible I will run another marathon, and if I will experience that reality, well, it's possible, but right now the answer is no. One is enough for me.

If your question meant something else, then your lack of clarity is your fault. Don' be afraid to use words. They're free.

Can someone be disconnected from reality? Can someone act more or less in accordance with reality?

 

[F1fan]

Can someone be disconnected from reality?

Yes, someone can have mental illness.

Can someone act more or less in accordance with reality?

Yes most of us do. Are you struggling? What's with the vague questions?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Yes, someone can have mental illness.

Yes most of us do. Are you struggling? What's with the vague questions?

This is what morality means. It’s an essential aspect of reality. Moral truth is to act more in accordance with reality.

Despite your arrogance and insults, you are one of those people I mentioned before who is confused about truth.

 

[Heyo]

Truth is that which is in accordance with reality

I agree.

and reality includes moral reality.

I disagree.
Morality is subjective, while reality is objective.
You may include ethics into reality, as they are at least intersubjective. "Killing people is bad" is not an unquestionable truth, "killing people is frowned upon in my society" is (depending on where you live).

But there is still a qualitative difference between "the Earth is an oblate spheroid" and "the unity of the United States is a good thing".
The first is true, no matter what you think about it, the second is only true as long as the majority agrees that it is.