1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Q4 2019 Story Competition is kicking off!

    Prompt:
    Foreign Magical Regions (Setting outside of Britain)
    Get writing Folks!
    Dismiss Notice

Civility in the US political discourse and identity politics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Arthellion, Sep 30, 2019.

  1. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Simultaneously, Republicans haven't been very successful at pressing their state legislative advantage. They've been able to cling to power, but their policies haven't changed the fundamental reach of government --- state expenditures only continue to rise --- or roll back liberal gains.
     
  2. chrnno

    chrnno High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    553
    You are not wrong but the whole point of democracy is parties being so busy fighting each other the bad mostly mutually neutralizes and they, in search of support against their opponents, try to do things that help people*. So while ideally gerrymandering wouldn't exist, or be heavily punished whenever discovered, as long as it didn't have much impact there were more important issues to handle.

    *The problem the world is having is that it is easier and more effective to convince people you are helping them when you are not, doing the opposite even, than improve things.
     
  3. Agayek

    Agayek Half-Blood Prince DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,510
    For sure, but I don't think you'll find many people, especially around here, that would call Republican politicians competent. Frankly, I'm almost embarrassed for them, given how much of a gong show they managed to make out of having majorities, if not super majorities, in every level of government.

    That said, I do feel like the whole exercise, and especially Trump, has served as something of a wakeup call for many people, on both sides of the aisle, when it comes to abuse of office and the flaws inherent to consolidation and centralization of power, which neatly fits with several elements of Republican rhetoric. To suggest it was intentional is... a bit ludicrous, some real 4D chess shit there, but it very much seems like a happy accident, whereby in abandoning their principles, they teach the rest of the populace why those principles are important. Might just be me reaching too far for the silver lining though, so who knows.

    Well yeah, of course they're unquestionable. The Republican party line on both topics is both wrong and largely inexcusable, there's no question or doubt about it. But an exercise of emotional masturbation where we sit here and have our 2 minute hate for <insert Republican here> isn't particularly useful or stimulating, especially when everyone agrees with it.
     
  4. awinarock

    awinarock Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    Texas
    Right but it is relevant to a discussion about whether or not both parties are equally bad. All parties engage in shady shit but whether or not both parties are equally shady is at question here. If someone thinks that degeneration of discourse and rhetoric on both sides of the political isle is a good enough reason to go from Democrat to Republican, then that means they also believe that both sides are equally bad. I'm not saying anyone's reason for switching parties is bad or wrong but it is what it is.
     
  5. Agayek

    Agayek Half-Blood Prince DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,510
    Has anyone said anything about voting Republican? The closest is CrippledGod's post which is basically "Goddamn, it's disappointing that the Democrats proved their stances and virtues don't seem to matter to them nearly as much as they claimed"
     
  6. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    Still examining some of the other ideas and working through them.

    But I think it's telling that so many in this thread are equating "be civil" with "lose to republicans." The fact that many seem to think the only way to win is to be nasty means they're part of the problem, not the solution.
     
  7. Mordecai

    Mordecai Drunken Scotsman ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Location:
    Scotland
    High Score:
    3,485
    Thats because the evidence of the last several decades is that the GOP have increasingly won, and continually increased their overall powerbase by being the nasty party.
     
  8. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    This is a wide sweeping generalization that ignores nuance. There is a difference between idealogical disagreement and hate. It is only recently that hatred has become the driving factor of the majority of the party.

    The "seize her by the P***' and public insulting of others in the extreme we are seeing is new.

    There are numerous other factors that have lead to the Republicans winning. Your stance ignores economics, messaging, tapping into common beliefs, etc. You also fail to see how the democrats have sucked at messaging and putting forward candidates that match the beliefs of their constituents.

    I think Hillary is an excellent example of this. At the time Tump was elected, he was still very distasteful to a lot of Republicans. But because the democrats put forward the worst possible candidate, Trump won. The democrats have got to get better at campaigning and messaging

    So...ultimately you're saying, "The republicans have the right idea! Let's imitate them!"

    The problem in the country is not racism or homophobia. It's not hatred against specific groups. It's hatred in general.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  9. Mordecai

    Mordecai Drunken Scotsman ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Location:
    Scotland
    High Score:
    3,485
    Bullshit. Absolute bullshit, raining down from a nice safe position of privilege. The problem is racism. The problem is homophobia. The problem is sexism. The problem is transphobia. And I'll call out all the racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, piece of shit supporting conservative voters quite happily, and tell them exactly what that makes them. The problem is people who don't think that supporting racists, homophobes, sexists, transphobes, and other pieces of shit is wrong. And people who hold their nose and vote for them anyway because...whatever bullshit reason they use to justify it to themselves. And people who either don't vote or throw their vote away when they could use their vote to try and prevent those pieces of shit from staying in power.

    That might not be a nuanced view, but what it is is accurate.
     
  10. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    You're engaging in the origin fallacy. Just because the origin of an argument comes from a certain place or position does not make the argument itself wrong. Deal with the argument itself.

    Also, your idea that I have this nice safe position of privilege is just a means of protecting yourself. You feel if you can invalidate my views, that you can protect yourself from them. That is an illusion.

    Privilege is a real thing. It is something I am aware of and do my best to use to leverage for the advancement of those less privileged. But my being privileged doesn't invalidate my argument. I am confident I would make the same argument if I wasn't so privileged. And I know many people who aren't as privileged as I am making the same argument. For example:
    [​IMG]
    These are invididual problems that arise from the source problem: hatred. If you are unkind and uncivil to those who are wrong, you only make them feel validated in their hatred of you. Don't prove them right. Being gay doesn't make you a piece of shit. Being a hateful person does. Show them that you are better than they are.
     
  11. SmileOfTheKill

    SmileOfTheKill Magical Amber

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,194
    Location:
    Florida, Sigh...
    Arthellion, you want to know why I know you are wrong?

    Obama. If you tried pulling the same logic in the start of his original term I might have agreed with you. I didn't trust the GOP back then either but a more forgiving and accepting view is a nice and idealistic way to work. Obama agreed with you.

    Look what happened. Obama got screwed... well I was going to say for eight straight years but he got screwed before and after his presidency as well. He tried so hard to work across the aisle and he got crapped on the entire time. If he came in with the idea that the GOP is a hostile entity he could have got a lot more done but he wasted so much time trying to act like they care about anything but themselves.

    I just don't see why you would argue for the moral high ground after Obama. We tried and we lost so much.

    Then we got Trump. BUT IF WE ARE EVEN NICER AND MORE MORAL MAYBE THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFRENT!

    Yeah no.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  12. Mordecai

    Mordecai Drunken Scotsman ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Location:
    Scotland
    High Score:
    3,485
    This isn't a debating hall or a philosophy class. You don't get to avoid dealing with the point by saying its originated from a fallacy.

    Your position of privilege may not invalidate your argument that racism and homophobia aren't the problem that your country is facing. But its the only excuse I can give you for believing that sort of nonsense. You don't have to worry about those things, so they're not a problem for you. Must be nice.

    And if you're dismissing these things as "not the problem", then you're not leveraging your position of privilege to help others. You're simply not. You're passively hurting everyone you seem to think you're helping, by refusing to acknowledge that the problem exists.
     
  13. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    I'll address the point in a second, but, respectfully, you seem to be ignoring my argument on the basis of a fallacy. Your stance seems to be "his position is one of privilege, therefore his argument is wrong." Hence, why I brought it up. You're right that this isn't a philosophy class, (I'd disagree about debating hall, we have some great debates here on DLP), but the rules of logic hold true regardless of location. You don't divorce math from science because they are different disciplines. Neither can you divorce the rules of logic from rational discourse.

    I never said racism and homohobia aren't problems we are facing. I said they are not -the- problem. Now...regarding my privilege for saying that? I would never tell my right wing friends what I just said here. Because you're right that they will use that stance to justify ignoring the individual problems of racism, homophobia, etc. Similarto the "all lives matter" response to "black lives matter." Is it true that all lives matter? Certainly. But focusing on that ignores the issue that is being raised by black lives matter.

    But I'm not speaking to them. I'm speaking to people who are very aware of the problems minorities face. So, I don't feel the need to address that. Rather, it's my hope that speaking on this can help with your hatred towards those who hate you.

    We don't have the right to hate other people. It doesn't matter what other people do, we don't have that right. We can stand against them. We can tell them they are wrong. We can fight against them. In the right situations, we can physical fight and kill them...but hate them? No. I reject that as something we have the right to do.

    I kinda addressed this above. I am not dismissing these things. I address them constantly with my irl friends. Honestly, they get pissed off at me, but I don't care. It's the right thing to do. My goal is not to dismiss these issues, rather, It's that I'mnot speaking to those issues right now. I'm speaking to what I see as general hatred rather than specific.

    So...let me just end with this...I do apologize for anyway my stances may have causes you to feel hurt or dismissed. That is never my intention. My intention is that we end hatred period.
    --- Post automerged ---
    The primary reason I disagree with this is Bush. The stuff the Left put Bush through was terrible. Why do you think they would accept the "moral high ground" view offered by the left once they gained power. It was viewed as pity and insincere.

    "You spend years trashing our president as scum and saying terrible things about him. You spend years trying to stop hiim from accomplishing what needs to be done? Why would we ever trust you now that you have power? We're gonna do the same thing to Obama. "

    I dont agree with this. But that was the mentality. Taken in a vacuum, i could more readily agree with your point. But that ignores conttext.

    Its a bitter cycle.
     
  14. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    Yea...no. People don't decide to be hateful and then cast about for some unprotected class to go slobber their hatred on. They learn to distrust and fear Others, and then they hate them. And the Others hating them back isn't some wild misplacement of inner torment, it's a logical reaction to the people attacking them.

    Your reaction seems to be "well whatever, don't hate them or they'll just keep hating you." I honestly wonder when was the last time you kindness'd someone into not despising you. It's not a thing that happens. When you're kind to someone like that, you get one or more of three reactions: a) gloating, b) suspicion, or c) anger.

    I don't understand why this concept seems to escape you.
    --- Post automerged ---
    More correctly: "Your position of privilege occludes your ability to even understand that you're wrong."
     
  15. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    https://www.lifeafterhate.org/

    Read some of the stories from that website. I don't understand why the concept of kindness and empathy acting as a catalyst to bring people out of hatred escapes you?

    Yea...no. I'm very aware of my flaws and weaknesses.

    Choosing to be kind towards those who hate me or don't like me, and encouraging others to do the same, is not one of those weaknesses.
    --- Post automerged ---
    Oh also, this video
     
  16. DR

    DR Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    "I found a unicorn, so this must be true of all horses."
     
  17. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    It's more like, "Some horses are brown, other's are black. There is a vareity of different responses."

    It's not like it's just one. But I found that after maybe five minutes of googling? Maybe do your research on what can bring people out of these situations .

    Kindness> Hate.
     
  18. Innomine

    Innomine Headmaster ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,114
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    So, I agree with every part of this post, except the very last sentence.

    The problem is not hatred in general.

    The problem is that structural problems have led to an environment in which hatred can fester. And in response everyone is dialling up the hatred instead of addressing the root cause of this issue.

    If the rule of law, or it’s reach, is compromised, then it doesn’t matter how right you are.

    If the current division in western liberal democracies continues on it’s current trajectory, we’ll reach a threshold or a tipping point and shit will start getting bad. In this scenario racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia will be far bigger problems than they are today. Along with a lot of other additional problems.

    Arthellion is correct in this. But for the wrong reasons.

    The house is on fire, we need to put the fire out. I absolutely agree that you cannot just ignore your issues, it is an existential crisis. But focusing only on this issue ignores the fact that the house house is on fire - a different existential crisis.

    Frankly, this is the strategy that Trump is using to distract every everyone away from the fundamental economic shifts he’s making. And it’s working. Here’s Steven Bannon who was Trump’s campaign strategist.

    It worked, and is still working.

    (Not trying to call you out here @Mordecai , I'm just using your post to seperate out where I agree and disagree with Arthellion.)

    I’ll demonstrate what I meant in my previous post.

    Your argument that the ‘source problem’ is hatred relies upon ‘because god’. This is inherently fallacious unless you can objectively prove the existence of god.

    You keep saying that this isn’t the place for that discussion, or that we wouldn’t understand because we’re not theologians. Bullshit. We’re not idiots.

    Either show us your objective proof of the existence of god, or stop using the veneer of an academic education in philosophy and arguments to shield your personal opinions.

    I think you misunderstand him. He’s not ignoring your argument, he does not accept your conclusion that hatred is the core problem. And quite frankly, he shouldn’t. Because it’s wrong. Hatred is not the source problem.

    Mordecai attributes this to your position of privilege. Your response that “I’m sure I would hold the same view if I wasn’t in this position” is not a valid counter argument to this.

    I agree with this.

    I’m calling you out on the bolded part though.

    I’ll say it again. You keep making your arguments as if they are based on logic and rationality. They are not. Until you can make your argument without one of the foundational assumptions being “because god”, you cannot claim logic or rational discourse.

    Unless, of course, you can objectively prove the existence of god.

    “Because god”

    Your intent is laudable. But honestly man, you come across as super patronising and condescending when you use fancy academic speak. You don’t need the language to make good arguments. It’s a crutch.

    Bush started the decline of the American Empire when he started wars on false pretences that still aren’t finished, costing your country over $6 TRILLION. Imagine if that had been spent on Infrastructure, health care, education and climate change. Would we still have the same environment that breeds such hatred?

    So, since I keep preaching about keeping things simple, here’s my argument in 3(5) short steps.

    1) We focus on identity politics.
    2) This takes focus away from the fundamental economic damage that BOTH the republican and democratic parties have been complicit in (However, it is fair to point out that it started with the republican creed of “government is evil, cut it all”, and that the Democrats are now largely reversing their policy stance on this).
    3) Our house is now on fire.
    4) ??????????????
    5) Profit.

    @Arthellion I got no problem with your beliefs on a personal level. If this was a private conversation, I'd have stopped long ago. I take no pleasure in challenging your world view, one that you say has helped you a lot. But this a public conversation in a public place that has a reputation for calling people on their bullshit. And many others are listening. You are using a position of privilege/authority to make claims that you really cannot. You are arguing for a course of action that would cause immeasurable and horrific harm to those impacted. You have no personal stake in this issue at all, and you've also categorically stated that you do not accept responsibility for the outcomes of your actions, as long as the intent is good. I feel a moral obligation to call you out on this.
     
  19. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    @Innomine Good stuff. I value your insight and appreciate the challenge/thought provoking statements. I’ll respond tomorrow sometime, but sleep for now. Appreciate you and your thoughts.
     
  20. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    256
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826+3348
    I largely agree with @Mordecai and @Innomine re: the latest batch of posts between you and @Arthellion, however I do want to challenge you guys on one particular point, since you've both used it to fuel the somewhat "righteous anger" tone of your posts.

    You say that Arth has no personal stake in the culture war around the rights of minorities because he's a Straight White Male and Christian to boot.

    I take you both at your word when you describe your personal experiences and I do the same for Arth. So when he says that he talks to other conservatives about those things and it pisses them off but he does it anyway because he believes it's good and important to talk to them about these things, he absolutely does have a personal stake in it. I won't make assumptions because Arth doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would air this stuff out with people not involved in the particular interaction, but I'd guess he's heard his share of insults and if insults and hatred are so impactful for you, then don't dismiss them for others.

    I understand that whatever stake I may have in wanting gay marriage to be legal in my country isn't as impactful for me as for a gay couple--I really get that. But then I don't subscribe to the position that one's opinion on an issue is worth less because one doesn't have first-hand experience with it. Right now the issues being discussed favour your voices. I hope you show similar deference to others when something is being discussed that you, as you put it, "have no personal stake in", especially given that the thread itself is about civility and politeness.
     
Loading...