I’m right, and you’re an evil monster

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, depending on your definition of "harm." I support healthy homosexual relationships, for instance, which many Christians condemn as spiritually "harmful."

Hence the point I was making in my original reply, which you have now demonstrated.

No, I am speaking as a secular Scandinavian with over 30 years of experience in effect of the difference between private, personal and professional when trying to help another human for which that human is a human and not just a process or whatever. The really of soft end of social science in practice.
So learn that this forum is more that just standard religion.

 

[Ella S.]

No, I am speaking as a secular Scandinavian with over 30 years of experience in effect of the difference between private, personal and professional when trying to help another human for which that human is a human and not just a process or whatever. The really of soft end of social science in practice.
So learn that this forum is more that just standard religion.

I was giving an example of how "harm" has different connotations depending on your worldview, not accusing you of being Christian.

My point is that I completely accept that the actions I consider helpful are going to be seen as unhelpful or even harmful to people who do not share my worldview.

In fact, this is something that is completely unavoidable, so it's not worth discussing any further, in my opinion. No matter what you do, somebody will see it as harmful. And, indeed, no matter what outcomes you might see as helpful, you might fail to achieve them.

So you aren't adding anything to the discussion.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I used to marvel at this but then I opened my eyes and looking all around me, wherever I physically went, unless there was some IoT connection to some media outlet or another everything was peaceful and quite. just like the old days I recall back in the mid 1990's when I first went online. Before discussion boards, 911, Trump/MAGA hysteria and the Plandemic. It's just a simple separation of reality and virtual reality. In virtual reality the squeaky (or is that squawky) wheel gets the grease. So if you need greased you know where to go and if you need to wash yourself from it go to the other place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was giving an example of how "harm" has different connotations depending on your worldview, not accusing you of being Christian.

My point is that I completely accept that the actions I consider helpful are going to be seen as unhelpful or even harmful to people who do not share my worldview.

In fact, this is something that is completely unavoidable, so it's not worth discussing any further, in my opinion. No matter what you do, somebody will see it as harmful. And, indeed, no matter what outcomes you might see as helpful, you might fail to achieve them.

So you aren't adding anything to the discussion.

So you are saying what? If you believe you help and the person is harmed, then what?

 

[Stevicus]

Omg so much this.
I remember back during my actual teen years I thought debating was only used to demonstrate the “superiority of your ideas.” That debate was for “owning your opponent.”
In fairness, this was likely due to following a lot of atheist/skeptic channels on YouTube where that was essentially the goal for a long time.

It was a very juvenile attitude and at best naive. A person who wins a debate is simply better at public speaking and rhetoric. It’s about pageantry really.

I will say that from what I’ve seen in discourse this has gone through a couple of cycles. Creationists were really good at debate tactics and could convince an audience with ease. Hence the so called “four horsemen of the apocalypse.” When that petered out, a lot of “debate me bros” arose online. At first it seemed to come mostly from conservatives, particularly following Trump’s election (just an observation.) Then in response suddenly there were “debate me bros” for the left. No doubt this cycle will repeat in some capacity in the future.
But for a while there did seem to be this idea that the best opinions would come from the so called “marketplace of ideas.”
I’ve honestly seen that flip flop over just the last few years. Speaking of online discourse primarily.

Yes, there are cycles, but some have noticed for quite a while.

Have you ever seen a 1988 film called Talk Radio? It's an Oliver Stone movie, but unlike many of his other works, this one didn't seem to be as well-known or popular. Very underrated film, a fictional story loosely based on the story of Alan Berg, a radio host who was murdered by white supremacists.

In the film, the lead character is a talk show host whose specialty is making people mad, and he gets a lot of calls from Klanners, white supremacists, and other such types. Towards the end, he finally has a meltdown in which he delivers a speech, but it's almost prophetic how it's still relevant today.

 

[Vee]

Thoughts?

I think the old saying that you don't catch flies with vinegar is very fitting.
Being aggressive towards others is unpleasant and it doesn't make them change their mind. Isn't it better to just express an opinion respectfully and let the other person decide what they want to do with that information?

 

[stvdv]

The way I see it, this sad state of things is the fault of the alt-right. Its ethos are contagious, toxic and deeply dysfunctional.

Of particular relevance is the practice of the "never play defense" principle and its close friend, the love of unashamed false equivalences.

Thank you very much for this video

I love the final remark:
"IF someone tries to force me to play defense, I don't have to play"

Great one-liner in response to these people
Unless they watch this, I'll need it many times

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, there are cycles, but some have noticed for quite a while.

Have you ever seen a 1988 film called Talk Radio? It's an Oliver Stone movie, but unlike many of his other works, this one didn't seem to be as well-known or popular. Very underrated film, a fictional story loosely based on the story of Alan Berg, a radio host who was murdered by white supremacists.

In the film, the lead character is a talk show host whose specialty is making people mad, and he gets a lot of calls from Klanners, white supremacists, and other such types. Towards the end, he finally has a meltdown in which he delivers a speech, but it's almost prophetic how it's still relevant today.

Wow.
I’ll check it out
Thanks

 

[sun rise]

I can get personally riled up on occasion. But stepping back from that to consider the OP of this thread, what really gets me going is deliberate gaslighting and fear/hate mongering.

We all have egos. We all want to be right. We all have a full panoply of psychological defense mechanism such as confirmation bias and denial. If we can admit that at the start and try to be aware when such things kick in, we'd be a lot better off.

 

[stvdv]

Some here have even taken great offense at my
agreeing to disagree. They refused to agree.
What does that even mean?

Simply said "There never was a conversation".

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I'm amazed that I keep finding news channels running in lobbies and waiting rooms. They're always full of bigoted asinine repetitive commentary. Who watches these things?

I think it's about the promulgation of the illusion of Democracy. The US is allegedly a republic, but you don't see that being promulgated. A Democracy is majority rules, while a Republic is individual rights. So, in the lobbies and waiting rooms who's preference is displayed. News is, or was, theoretically, of general concern. Maybe I would rather watch South Park or Headbanger concerts. Or classical music. That would drive some crazy. So until the coming of the New World Order, whatever that is, we have the illusion of Democracy. My solution is apolitical.

So, okay, the issues the article introduced was abortion and gun control. I'm a man and therefore apparently capable of being a birth giver, or mother to use a more archaic term, but I'm retired. So as an allegedly former potential mother; a retired childless man who hunted as a kid and thinks that government is undoubtedly corrupt to its evil core . . . I don't care about gun control, abortion or manufactured terrorism and pandemics. It doesn't really effect me.

Democracy is imposing your will on others if you have the numbers. I'm just me. No part of the circus. The circus is a noisy and dangerous place so I only marvel at it from a distance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think it's about the promulgation of the illusion of Democracy. The US is allegedly a republic, but you don't see that being promulgated...

Democracy is imposing your will on others if you have the numbers. I'm just me. No part of the circus. The circus is a noisy and dangerous place so I only marvel at it from a distance.

Just to be clear that I understand your meaning: you're saying that they want to give us the impression that we should force our own will upon everyone else instead of leaving decisions up to smartly elected reps?

...a retired man who hunted as a kid and thinks that government is undoubtedly corrupt to its evil core . . .

Its not as corrupt as some. For example it doesn't shake down businesses to take their profits away like in some places. It also lets foreigners become citizens, has written laws which must be interpreted according to precedents, has enforced some food safety guidelines, protects property rights, lets people exercise our rights etc. It could be a lot more corrupt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the old saying that you don't catch flies with vinegar is very fitting.
Being aggressive towards others is unpleasant and it doesn't make them change their mind. Isn't it better to just express an opinion respectfully and let the other person decide what they want to do with that information?

That's if the goal is to change the mind of that specific person on the core issue. Usually, that isn't my goal.

If I'm trying to change that specific person's mind at all, it's going to be on a side issue: I won't try to convince someone opposed to same-sex marriage that it's fine, but I might get them to acknowledge that there are other religious groups that consider it blessed by God, for instance.

And if changing minds is your goal, you often get more bang for the buck trying to convince the lurkers reading the thread; in those situations, the person you're debating is really just a foil you can use to demonstrate the folly of the position they're arguing. If they dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge your valid points, this actually helps your cause.

... but when I think about it, most of the time when a discussion I'm in ends up being aggressive, it didn't start as an attempt on my part to convince anyone of anything. There have been plenty of times when I started off asking questions to understand the other person's viewpoint better, ran into things in their explanation that stuck out as problematic, and over time got more and more frustrated as their responses got more and more irrational or evasive.

 

[osgart]

I think the fact that we can argue about corruption means that there are some absolute truths out there. One absolute truth I find on here is that one person's truth should never interfere with other people's truths so long as those truths do no damaging harm to others and vice versa. IOW live and let live so long as no damaging harm is created.

Then there is the question of what constitutes damaging harm. That is one place where the conflicts arise.

I only fight against truths of people that insist on forcing their truths upon others who don't share in such truths. America is a place of diversity of truths, and those that don't like that are not very American imo.

I just don't believe that there are no absolute truths and that most people can not share common core values. There are common core values that are absolutely true. People should unite to be in defense of common core values. Those common core values are every description of good character and good will.

I think everyone has unwavering convictions that they consider to be absolutely true. Science will take you down a road of objective truth facts for example.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Just to be clear that I understand your meaning: you're saying that they want to give us the impression that we should force our own will upon everyone else instead of leaving decisions up to smartly elected reps?

Not really. I wouldn't have said anything as ambiguous as that. I would have had to say who "they" were, who "we" were and who "everyone else" and "smartly elected reps" were. I take it the latter being a theoretical concept?

Its not as corrupt as some.

Spiritus Mundi [Latin] - Spirit Of The World. I made reference to the US as a republic in the guise of a democracy, but I see them all, that is all governments of the world, as one. So, keeping in mind that I'm not an active participant of the worldly arrangement, I'm only an observer, to me the question is, who is the enemy of the state? The people. The people are their own enemy. It really doesn't matter if they are represented by the alleged "smartly elected" or any other group or individual. Divide and conquer is best that they can come up with. It's all the same. Which is best is subjective. If you are happy with what you are given in your land it doesn't mean the people of the nations your representatives destroyed in the process are as equally happy with the arrangement.

For example it doesn't shake down businesses to take their profits away like in some places. It also lets foreigners become citizens, has written laws which must be interpreted according to precedents, has enforced some food safety guidelines, protects property rights, lets people exercise our rights etc. It could be a lot more corrupt.

If it can be, it will be. Divide and conquer. A house divided doesn't stand for long, relatively speaking. Keeping in context with the OP, the current monstrosity isn't anything new, it just seems that way because the world is shrinking figuratively. The more the people are educated the less educated they become. The more tolerant the people strive to be, the less tolerant they become. The more they seek freedom the more enslaved they are. The more advanced they are the closer they are to their own destruction. Not just some other group, tribe or nation. All of them.

It doesn't matter if they use religion, politics or science to achieve that end.

I happen to believe when that self destruction is apparent to everyone some other arrangement planned long ago will intercede. And so that is how I think and act. I'm not going to go to some other place and kill people for any reason. I'm not going to step into a supermarket or school and start mowing people down. I'm not going to blow up an abortion clinic. I'm not going to tell anyone else how to think or live.

I observe.

 

[Stevicus]

There's also the issue that many people hold multiple contradictory values at once, requiring them to frequently prioritize some value over another.

So, maybe a bill will save the lives of children, but it does so through some sort of eugenics program that most people would oppose on different grounds.

Yes, usually when one gets to the actual nuts and bolts of a proposal, then it can be problematic and run into opposition. This reminds me of a recent story in which Congress is trying to address the issue of gun control, and (unlike what they usually do), they're introducing 8 separate bills individually, as opposed to putting them all in a single package (which is usually full of pork).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thoughts?

My first thought: the Overton Window is a hell of a drug.

The discourse in the US right now is mostly about right wing extremism on the one side and slightly backing off from right wing extremism on the other. Suggesting that both positions are equally worthy of respect and deserve to be equally heard out strikes me as some gaslighty, sea-liony, right wing apologetics.

I mean, these sorts of appeals to discourse are never about asking the right to be more accommodating. It's always "hey - let that white supremacist say his peace" and never "hey - let's hear BLM out."

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm amazed that I keep finding news channels running in lobbies and waiting rooms. They're always full of bigoted asinine repetitive commentary. Who watches these things?

When I was in my eye doc office, the tv was on the Knitting Channel or something. No fights broke out that day against those who prefer wool over a thinner yarn.

 

[Stevicus]

I think it's about the promulgation of the illusion of Democracy. The US is allegedly a republic, but you don't see that being promulgated. A Democracy is majority rules, while a Republic is individual rights. So, in the lobbies and waiting rooms who's preference is displayed. News is, or was, theoretically, of general concern. Maybe I would rather watch South Park or Headbanger concerts. Or classical music. That would drive some crazy. So until the coming of the New World Order, whatever that is, we have the illusion of Democracy. My solution is apolitical.

So, okay, the issues the article introduced was abortion and gun control. I'm a man and therefore apparently capable of being a birth giver, or mother to use a more archaic term, but I'm retired. So as a mother and a retired man who hunted as a kid and thinks that government is undoubtedly corrupt to its evil core . . . I don't care about gun control, abortion or manufactured terrorism and pandemics. It doesn't really effect me.

Democracy is imposing your will on others if you have the numbers. I'm just me. No part of the circus. The circus is a noisy and dangerous place so I only marvel at it from a distance.

I always thought the term "democracy in a republic" was a more apt and accurate phrase to describe America's government - rather than having to choose one or the other, republic or democracy. Some might say "democratic-republic," but either way, we're both.

I don't know that it's necessarily an illusion, or at least, I would generally refer to it is the standard order political lies and BS which has become the staple of party politics. Not only that, but it seems to extend to all branches and parts of government.

I think the article used abortion and gun control as well-known examples that most people are familiar with.

(Heck, I remember back to my high school debate classes in the late 70s. When we were given a list of possible topics to debate, gun control and abortion were at the top of the list. Capital punishment was also a popular topic, so that's the one I chose.)

But I can see similar trends when it comes to other topics.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not really. I wouldn't have said anything as ambiguous as that. I would have had to say who "they" were, who "we" were and who "everyone else" and "smartly elected reps" were. I take it the latter being a theoretical concept?

Still a bit unclear as to what you meant, and now I'm not sure you want me to understand you. Stay mysterious if you like.