How NOT to deal with republicans

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The intro is very informative of the interview.
    No, it didn't. Go back and review the behavior of the Republican Party and its core electoral base in the six months after Obama's election.
    As you yourself recognize:
    Hold that thought. That's where you make contact with reality. And capitalize the R, for mental clarity.
    I don't know about Billy - he had other priorities - but I did, sure. And it didn't take any special insight - just looking around, remembering from 12 to noon, discussing the obvious with the people who have been discussing the obvious (and making consistently accurate predictions, delivering cogent and urgent warnings, etc) for thirty, forty years. For example, I posted a link to an essay by Molly Ivins (one of the heavyweights in my crowd, a syndicated journalist of undeniable intelligence, ability, integrity, reputation, and charm, who of course never got a pundit desk in the big money venues) about Hillary Clinton, written in 2006 from the perspective of the previous twenty years. Here it is again:
    You don't know who you're talking to, or talking about. You have swallowed the Fox frame whole and without awareness. How did that happen?
    He talks about himself and his interview guest, as liberals - right now, today. He says that explicitly. I agree with him.
    Your reflexive reduction of all analysis to namecalling is a fieldmark of the wingnut Right and a central pillar of its framing of all issues. So is the exclamation point, immediately after chastising other people for "screaming". You got that frame from the same media operation that feeds Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Brit Hume, Breitbart - you talk like them, you think like they think. And you call that "independent".
    You are correct in that the majority of the American voting public is left libertarian, on the standard scales in which those words have meaning. I have posted that observation dozens of times on this forum. It's a standard, agreed, basic, fact of the situation among people like me.
    What you just saw, in the last election, was your way. One feature of your way is that people like me were once again more or less completely excluded from the major media and the public political discussion , just as you recommend. You seem to think it didn't work. I agree.

    I don't think it will work next time, either. I think "validating" and "listening" and "finding common ground" with the modern Republican Party, its core voting base, and especially its media propaganda efforts, as the Clintons made a career of doing, as you and Rahm Emanuel and Dick Morris (in Ivins's essay) recommend, has been a serious mistake all along.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Another Honest Journalist:

    I listen to youtube video via my phone or laptop during work, during my commutes, at home while cooking, chores, playing vidya, etc. I would say 50% of my day am listening to this stuff and I know I'm not the only one and more and more younger people are doing the same.

    He does one of those intros for every interview, it does not change what the interviewee says.

    How about six months BEFORE Obama, they were demoralized, and I'm speaking of republican voters, not republican media, the election of a "negro overlord" re-energized them, especially the most racist and rightwing of them, pushing the party further rightward.

    You have said nothing here or proven anything, I can't even extract a valid premise and conclusion.

    So you agree with him today's liberals don't care about veterans?

    No I got that from being called such for suggestion, even thought experiments, Tiassa and Bells are good examples, over the last 3 years. The rightwing have seen the same thing you and your ilk spew, and have captilized on it.

    ... ok

    Aah and here is where you put in the strawman, again I'm not talking about modern republican party voters, I'm talking about the masses of "left libertarians" who general don't vote or vote between parties (independents). If we can energize just a precentage of them we can win everything, as we did in 2009, if we turn to moderatism and to babystepism, we will lose them and the republicans will win back everything, and if the republicans have a canidate that energized even a small precentage of the non-voters and independents then we are utterly fucked, as we are now. The masses of republican only voters are negated by the masses of democrat only voters, it is all the rest that decide the elections.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That may be the source of their inability to reason using language, or resist the propaganda initiatives of the tone and image manipulators.
    There is no such issue with them in the first place. There is no divide, no need for "listening" and "validation" of Republican Party agitprop, among people not in thrall to it.
    I agree with him that he is among today's liberals, and so are lots of other people like him. And he cares about veterans.
    I also know that veterans's welfare and circumstances is a focus and and unusually high priority issue among lefties in the US. It's far higher in their priorities than it is in the Republican Party's agenda, for example - it's often wrapped in with health care initiatives and military funding and the like, explicitly. And these people are a large fraction of the "liberals" in the US.

    So he is incorrect, in general. He apparently has heard from some "liberals" (how did he know?) who don't care about veterans, or thinks he has, and generalized. There's all kinds of ways that can go wrong - starting with his insularity on the coasts, so that the Midwest and South liberals who have military in the family or next door are not in his circle, say. It's also possible he got it somehow from hate radio or mass media outlets - the wingnut media feed has often included that canard, and he's doing the listen and validate thing, which makes him vulnerable. Who knows?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    So let me get this straight, he goes around polling liberals about where they will and won't put their money for charity, proclaims liberals don't care about veterans because of relation to military industrial complex, and you answer to this is that he must have heard it from right wing media.

    Everything is a generalization, stop being so obtuse.

    Back to basic logic question: if right wing media says 2+2=4 is that a slanderous propaganda too? If right wing media happens to say something that is true, your response is to double down on denial, you don't see a problem there?
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Certainly young conservatives. Older conservatives get most of their information from talk radio; younger conservatives get it from video. The no-thought-required, push-based format seems to work well for them. Liberals tend to get information from all sources - websites, print media, video and radio.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, please read the actual post. Dealing with your inability to comprehend simple written English is a pain in the ass.

    I claimed it's possible he got that idea filtered down from rightwing media, for two reasons: 1) it's been a common slander of theirs for decades now 2) he explicitly recommends his practice of listening to such sources and validating them.

    It's also possible his circle of "liberals" only includes people who reject supporting veterans as part of their opposition to the military/industrial complex - he seems isolated enough for that to be possible, as I pointed out.

    But it is not possible that liberals and/or lefties in general, as a characteristic, reject supporting veterans, while conservatives favor supporting veterans. That is false, both sides of it, as a matter of observation. It's commonly the other way around.
    Everything they say is part of their slanderous propaganda operations. Dealers in slander and lies can often do simple arithmetic correctly when the answer furthers their agenda.

    The way it used to be put: "The Devil can quote Scripture to His purpose". Don't forget His purpose, when dealing with the Devil.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2017
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    and it is also possible that the jews have got to him too, so you just want to poison the well then?

    Oh everything, EVERYTHING they say, really? Don't you think that is a generalization?

    You don't think young conservatives also read and listen to radio? I read the articles arrogated by RealClearPolitics and listen to MPR-NPR-BBC.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    We have no evidence "the Jews have got to him", and no reason to think anything like that is even possible.

    Is that the first thing that came into your head?
    It's a generalization. It's also accurate, and fair warning. If you don't keep it firmly in mind, you will be vulnerable to getting your head spun by professionals - after which mishap, you would be posting wingnut propaganda framed bs on any forums you frequent. That would be bad.
    Aggregated. Is that evidence for what "young conservatives" read and listen to?
  12. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    That one took me a minute - especially since arrogated is an actual word...
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    He works in Hollywood and is rich, need I say more.

    Yes, we control the world don't you know?

    You don't see anything hypocritical with things you have said to me a few post before?

    So end up like you then? Look they says the left wing media is all spin and propaganda, decades in the making by the "Cultural Marxists" and anyone the listens to long will have their minds polluted, so by simple observation you and they are simply two sides of the same coin: political conspiracy kooks. At least the "Jews control everything" types I can have fun with, you on the other hand sadden me and are an example of the kind of liberal that has gotten us in our present hell.

    No, no it is not.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You'd need to know his skin color as well to _really_ stereotype him (if such things are important to you, which they apparently are.)
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    why would I need to know his skin color?
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, you would need to say more.
    How would you know? You don't even know what I post here, and that's right in front of you.
    So we've noticed. That kind of fun is ready to hand at all times, with you - you do know about that.
    And you have no defense - they say "left wing media", you actually see left wing media, for example. They say "cultural marxist", you see cultural marxism, whatever the hell they told you that was. They piss on your face and tell you it's raining, you put your rubber boots on. And anyone who pointed out to you that in real life the major media is rightwing-biased, "cultural marxist" is a meaningless waste of syllables ( marxism), that isn't rain, and boots won't help, you greet as the other side of the coin - a political conspiracy kook of the opposite side.

    That is not a dignified, adult way to be.

    Start here: The "alt-right" is one of the oldest political factions in the US. It has nothing to do with "sjw" stuff, political correctness, and so forth. Its media wing is lying to you, about that. And everything else.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You've already stereotyped him based on income and location; why stop there?
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Let me rephrase the question: What would his skin color have to do with it?

    I see where this is going, you people call a proposal to strip white men of the vote, "satire" but pointing at Jewish world domination, you will scream "racist", I would disagree: I'm in a perfect position to satirize world jewish domination, I get my check from the elders just like any other jew, if you can call striping white men of the vote because the white men control everything, "satire", then why can't I call world jewish domination satire as well?

    Yes I would know about that.

    Who said I see cultural Marxism? That what they say, I have a understanding of what they say, because I listen, rather then make up shit about their positions. I don't see cultural Marxism, there is no grand communist conspiracy or worse Jewish conspiracy to dilute white culture into oblivion.

    I don't disagree that the majority of media as a righting-bias, especially when it come to economics.

    Sure it would not be, it would be a strawmans way to be.

    Magnitude and degree are beyond you, so is nuance: the alt-right of today is stronger and in power to a degree it has not been in decades if not ever. Equating it with previous facious and nationalist and racistist movement and proclaiming that it has always been here, is not a counter argument to mine, but another strawman.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nothing. What does his income and his zip code have to do with it? (If you're not a bigot, that is.)
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's been gaining power, up and down, since Nixon, reversing a decline after WWII. So?
    You claimed it appeared and took power as a reaction to something recent you called "sjw", and the like. That is backwards: the "alt right" was here first, and long ago, and quite powerful - in its current manifestation controlling the Republican Congress and media operations since '94 at the latest, and in the past gaining footholds in the Presidency (Nixon, Reagan, W&Cheney) as well.

    Go back far enough and that faction (under names such as the KKK, or the John Birch Society) has been a dominant political force in the former Confederacy and the current Republican Party strongholds.

    The notion that it formed cloudlike from the blue in reaction to anything anyone on the left did, or anything anyone in the Democratic Party did, or the like, is amnesiac.
    A satirical proposal to strip white men of the vote is called "satire". I would have no idea whether a given "pointing at Jewish world domination" is satirical or not, until I see it. I can easily imagine it being satirical, although with Jew-haters Poe's Law applies in spades.

    And of course I never scream around here, and since I am educated I don't interchange anti-Semitism and racism in that situation. So you don't, in fact, see where that - or anything I post, apparently - is "going".
    You not only "understand" what they say, you adopt its frame and interpret other things accordingly - you buy into what they say. You have them reacting to what their news sources tell them about Democrats and liberals as if they were reacting to actual Democrats and liberals, for example. You have me projected as screaming "racist" at you, above, for another. You have to have "seen" what they refer to as Cultural Marxism, to do that.
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    ... it like your saying Hitler was part of a unstoppable cycle, gee would it not be nice to know what causes those ups and downs and stop it? Or is your goal to just sit back and claim you saw it all coming while doing nothing to prevent it?

    Again having existed and being in power are different things, let alone the degree of power and existance! Second the republicans of today are not the republicans of '94, Nixon was not Reagan, Cheney is not Trump, your conspiracy theory is that all of these are the same thing, it is a gross over simplification that fails to see change and trends in change.

    No shit! But this is NEW, this is different, but to you it is all the same, and that inability to see the diffidence makes this argument impassible at this point.

    And poe's law does not apply to striping white men of the vote?

    What does education have to do with this.

    I buy into what I have seen with my own eyes, if they have seen the same thing, does that somehow make it all not real? If they say 2+2=4 is it now untrue or part of some republican propaganda?

    Oh then can you tell me if it is satire or not when I speak of Jewish domination?

    No I have not seen cultural marxism, I just explained that to you in the previous post.

    Being rich and living in hollywood means he must work with a lot of jews?
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    #incongruity | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click to dream of a TV show.

    You should probably put in some effort and #StartMakingSense.

    To wit, it only seems like ... er ... ah ... that, I guess, whatever it's supposed to mean—you're not really trying, are you?—because you say so. Other than that, let's go with random flying monkey pulled out of someone else's fantastic ass that doesn't exist.

    Yeah, we're aware of the conservative need to declare arbitrary starts to history. It coincides with the conservative need to think everything is new and unprecedented, to the point that they start to sound like Douglas Adams' old joke about sheep and the sunrise.

    To borrow from Lisa Simpson: What does that even mean, anyway? Seriously, you're not really trying, are you?

    Sometimes it helps with making logical and rational decisions. Like, you know, trying to find the benefit in, and deciding whether or not to participate in anti-Semitism.

    It is uncertain how many people around here remember ideas like VHF and UHF, rabbit ears, a dial, or getting four stations between two and thirteen, but also picking up channel twenty-eight, or whatever, that was always Christian programming. Or, say, Divorce Court straight into Success 'n' Life. And, okay, so there was this band, called Panic, and I'll have to look up the song because it's never the one I think, but they crammed a sample of the S'n'L preacher, Bob Tilton, onto their album at one point; the guy is an echo of childhood for a bunch of us. And then there were the Crouches, who succeeded the Bakkers at Praise The Lord. I recall the late Jan Crouch once explaining to the audience that God gave makeup to the Christian women so they could be the prettiest. And, you know, for years, I laughed at that with my only other witness, my mother. And then one day I went and heard it again, from a completely different direction. And it's hard to decide where to start with what's wrong with all that.

    But, you know, I've seen with my own eyes: Yes, there are some women who call themselves Christian who do, in fact, need makeup in order to reduce the aesthetic discomfort their appearances inspire among certain others who need women to wear makeup in order to be properly pretty.

    And, you know, it's something you can see in the world, and you're welcome to buy into it and see the same thing, but in the end it is only true or not as a matter of belief. And this? Complete bullshit. Do you know how we accommodate people like the Crouches, how to not make them uncomfortable? Be like them. Imitate them. Use the same words. Dress the same. Judge others as ye see the Crouches judging.

    Which is all fine, right? Until the part where merely existing without doing so makes them uncomfortable. So tell me, if they believe God made Christian women so ugly as to need makeup in order to be properly beautiful, is it untrue or part of some Christian propaganda?

    The question of two plus two equaling four is pretty straightforward. The trick is in whether what one describes actually equals what it is. In the Crouches' world, that God created makeup for Christian women to be the prettiest is as straightforward as two plus two. Within the boundaries of faith, it seemed rather quite inappropriate to wonder why God made Christian women so damn ugly in the first place. Or why "pretty" mattered in the eyes of God.

    And while it's true most I knew were hardly so obsessed about women's appearances, I'm also of the generation that saw Redbook endure a terrible controversy by offending its advertisers when they selected a Harvard professor as woman of the year; she didn't wear makeup, so advertisers threatened to pull from the magazine.

    Women and makeup; two plus two. (What does that even mean, anyway?)

    Fun bit of trivia: There were a lot of noise nuisance ordinances in the eighties, as part of the Christian fight against youth and freedom. Okay, that's one way of putting it. But the thing was the laws were only enforced against heavy metal and rap. When it came to violating the ordinance under the guise of chasing black people away from McDonald's or country music for the same reason at a car dealership, people didn't understand what kind of jerk would try to apply the noise ordinance. And what finally did those particular noise ordinances in was Harley Davidson. Yeah, you can still ban the use of compression brakes in your city, but a bunch of noise ordinances passed to stop young people from playing heavy metal or rap in public, never really did work.

    But the argument behind censorship has found many innovative uses in contemporary conservatism. The idea was an adaptation of the end of the nose argument about rights. As it stands, one's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of another's nose. Empowered Christianity attempted a reasonably popular argument: Your right to free speech ends where I am offended. And we've pretty much been on that one ever since. Music, movies, television, books, birth control, health insurance, feeding children, religions other than Christianity, &c. The list goes on. It's the heart of the conservative social policy argument by which the Christian can only be equal under law by having superior rights and protection under law.

    Truth told, if you can convince a billion Chinese, or anyone else, as such, that the healthiest way to avoid air pollution is to cover your head with a plastic bag, y'all will still be wrong.

    If they have seen the same thing? Welcome to the brotherhood, dude. It's the same appeal to solidarity men relied on back in the eighties, when those uppity women were stealing their jobs and pretending the temerity to tell a man she had a choice in whether or not she was going to have sex with him.

    Saying two plus two equals four is actually supposed to mean something beyond whatever emotional twinge you might feel in saying it.

    Your politicking lacks any actual appeal to rational discourse. See, in the end, the only way to not offend the women need makeup argument is to neither contest nor defy it. Two plus two, man. All it takes is for women to shut the fuck up and wear makeup ... in certain ways ... that, you know, men find attractive ... or that preachers' wives approve of. You know, not spooned on like a harlot, but troweled on like Tammy Faye or Jan.

    And this is what you can't account for. And there is no Spock dualism for mystery. That is, we understand why you're unwilling to try; it is because you are unable to succeed. Part of me wants to say something like, "Don't feel badly, but ...". The problem, of course, is that such prefaces ring hollow when what comes next is to remind of your inherent human limitations. But the truth is you are unable to succeed because it is an impossible task. That there is a hypothetical state by which humanity can meet such bizarre standards does not mean they are rational.

    In truth, Jan Crouch is part of a consistent American Christian tradition of pantomiming faithlessness.

    In the fourth century, Arius and Athanasius threw down about the nature of Christ, and with spectacularly stupid and enduring results. The problem, of course, was human pride: The divinity of Jesus would undermine the redemption on the Cross; the humanity of Jesus was repugnant for presuming God frail. That is, yes, the dispute really was between practical reality according to the story before them, to the one, and wanting to be able to say their God was better than anyone else's, to the other. And they concretized this conflict in a particular Creed still recited in many churches, today, and then continued on their merry way, including prosecuting people for denying the full humanity of Jesus. See, the way they settled the problem, functionally, was that Jesus Christ was one hundred percent human, and also one hundred percent divine.

    It's like another Douglas Adams joke, the one about how the Babel fish destroyed God. If the point is faith, these are the people who decide they can best demonstrate their faith by doggedly attempting to prove everything, and, furthermore, having engaged that seemingly paradoxical struggle, encounter the problem of being able to prove anything, and thus invent bizarre surrogates in lieu of solutions.

    Judge not, except when ye do. Render unto Caesar, except when ye don't want to. Something about adultery, something about divorce. Eventually we get to Kim Davis.


    I've been trying out the word "Christianist", lately. It seems to work; I'm unwilling to call them "Christian". Two plus two. Corn is not Steve.

    And they can be wrong, just like anyone else, including you.
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Well it makes sense to me, do you want me to rephrase it, explain it in detail, make it simplier? Iceaura argument (general tactic even) seems to be to say something has been for as long ways back, therefor nothing can be done or better yet not our (our as in you regressive leftists) fault for exasperating it. Iceaura denies variation, difference, change, magnitude and cycles, in order to proclaim the present alt-right has not been stoked by you and yours, and that the behavior of the regressive/authoritarian/sjw/ctrl left has had no effect on its growth.

    Is this a new argument fallacy: that if you can equate it with conservatism, therefor it is wrong?

    Should I try simpler words or more detail?

    Poe's law states roughly that it is impossible to tell trolling from kookier, eer simpler: that one can not tell when someone is joking or truly believes what they say.

    If the editor (other thread discussion mind you) says she believe taking way the vote for men is a legitimate proposal, is she serious or is it just "satire"?

    If I say the Jews control the world, am I serious or is it just "satire"?

    The feminist argument that the editor talks about is that white men control the world, therefor why not consider restricting the rights of white men, place "jews" in the place of "white men" and you have the standard alt-right argument for what is wrong with the world. So when you get offended by the alt-right, why not consider that they are just being "satirical" and don't really believe it? Do that and I will accept that the editor believed that article was a work of satire. Understand then that when people get offended by the talk of you regressive left, it is because they don't see what you said as satire, surely you see this already and your counter is that they are stupid, ok but they still vote.

    Except I am educated, most jews are. I have no problem participating because I can be satirical about it, sort of like how blacks can say the N-word with impunity. So when I say jews control the world at best I'm flattering my self and at worse I'm making a sarcastic-ironic comment in order to criticizes another argument, aka "satire".

    I see no reason for you to ever ask me to make sense after you wrote all that.

Share This Page