Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 04-23-2018, 11:52 AM
Canarr Canarr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 882
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenday View Post
That's fair. Trump's a misogynistic pig so if a woman is unhappy their spouse supported him, that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

Also, it's not like they owe their spouse sex in the first place.
No, nobody "owes" their spouse sex. But trying to change your partner's behavior through the threat of withholding sex is neither very enlightened, nor is it probably conducive to a continuing relationship.

So, no. That's not a reasonable thing to do. Ever.
__________________
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 04-23-2018, 06:43 PM
Daskinor Daskinor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 235
Default

Are we really trying having a serious discussion about bias against conservatives/republicans, with evidence from an unsorced YouTube video. A video no better then a segment you would find off a comedy show.

And somehow this is proof of something? How do we know this 'evidence' is not cherry picked in any way. How do we know its not faked.

We simply don't. The video is designed to deliver a narrative, not some kind of useful insight. A narrative even on it's own that has no structure because the question of Why is never asked. Leaving the viewer to fill in the gaps on their own.

We buy into this crap because of confirmation bias. What it says to one subset of people, is simply "This just reinforces what I already believe."
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 04-24-2018, 01:07 AM
MadMike's Avatar
MadMike MadMike is offline
Heavy Metal Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Enola, PA
Posts: 989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
But I do think it's interesting that the ones in the video that claim to be "open minded" basically said they refused to be friends with someone they didn't agree with politically.
I don't agree with refusing to be friends with someone just because of their political beliefs. I agree, that doesn't sound open-minded. However, even being open-minded has its limits. I can usually see both sides of the argument, but there are a few cases where I simply can not. For example, I thought Obama was an OK president, but I can see why some people thought he was terrible. But I can't see how anyone could possibly think Trump is doing a good job.

As far as being friends with people on the right, I have a few, including one I've known for almost 30 years, since towards the end of my days in retail. He can be a little infuriating sometimes though, because he is not open-minded. He has a blind hatred towards anything left-leaning, and he thinks the right can do no wrong. One time, we were talking about taxes in Pennsylvania, and he put all the blame on the democrats, saying that democrats always raise taxes and republicans always lower them. When I pointed out that our last governor, who was a republican, raised our gas tax and a handful of other fees relating to driving, his response was, "Oh, that was necessary." So basically, if a republican raises taxes, it's "Necessary", but when a democrat does the same thing, he's ripping you off.

Me, I don't care what someone's political affiliation is when they jack up taxes. 99.9% of the time, I think they're ripping us off. I've complained about democrats who did it just as loudly as republicans who did it. And in PA, there's a lot to complain about. We have the highest gas tax in the nation, and some of the worst roads, which the taxes were supposed to fix. We also have one of the highest paid legislatures, but I'm sure that's entirely coincidental.
__________________
--- I want the republicans out of my bedroom, the democrats out of my wallet, and both out of my first and second amendment rights. Whether you are part of the anal-retentive overly politically-correct left, or the bible-thumping bellowing right, get out of the thought control business --- Alan Nathan
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 04-27-2018, 01:46 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Because they think all Republicans are bigoted and racist.
EXACTLY! Because that's the image they are being presented. It's the classic "fringe group is loudest of that group so that must be the voice of the group so that is the group" Both sides have been doing that to each other for years.

The loudest Republicans right now are bigoted and racist. There aren't a ton of super loud Republicans yelling "screw those people" So the image people get of the label Republican is that it means "You're bigoted and racist" thus if you ask the question in the way of

"Do you have Republican friends" they're not asking about a person's friends they're asking "do you have any bigoted and racist friends"

During a point in the last 20 years if someone had been asked "Do you have any Catholic Priests for friends" a lot of people would jump to "did you just ask me if I have pedophiles for friends"

If you emphasize a title and are in a period of time when the title is being heavily tied to an abhorrent thing then that's going to influence a lot of people's answers very heavily.

That's why the labels and the titles need to be ignored. Why when reading an article on someone raising taxes instead of looking for the R or the D you need to look for the wording of the tax bill they're pushing.

Most of us don't screen our friends by saying "Hey what party do you belong to?" For the most part I neither know nor care which parties my friends are members of. I know where they stand on the issues. I know what they care about.

But if asked "Do you have any Republican Friends" My focus would be on "why did you ask me the question like that why the emphasis on Republican you mean like those assholes that back racists to the hilt? Like those people? Or do you mean friends that are republican"

Because those are legit two very different questions.

"Who you are defines what you do" - Across the Universe
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 04-29-2018, 06:59 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 569
Default

'Eh. My wife (who actually showed me this site) from Customer's Suck which is more her jam was actually kicked out by her guardians for having voted for Obama.

I think "douchebag relative that feels you owe them votes" is a really common thing that has less to do with political orientation and more to do with outrage at their lack of control over others. In the case of those boyfriends/husbands - Divorce this person immediately.

To the actual topic, I have plenty of Republican friends. And Democrat friends. The reason is I don't litmus test them because (and maybe this comes from being politically active before I could legally vote), I've seen just about every sort of bs rhetoric imaginable and I've seen people change their minds.

Open Minded itself is a bit of a misnomer. Open mined doesn't mean someone's opinion changes on a dime. It means they are receptive to new information. Even with said new information, it may take years for their mind to change. But that is demonstrably different than someone who speeds away from any information they find offensive.

Re: All Republicans being bigoted/racist. That bit is kind of an interesting socialogical point. That is, I don't think with the Trump vote many were stupid enough to believe that Trump wasn't a racist. That stuff came through both in what he said and his past business dealings. But enough people were willing to overlook it and I think that's where you see a lot of outrage.

So while I don't necessarily consider Republicans racist by default, I do consider them guilty of failing a test. That being, when a candidate that utterly fails to uphold liberal democratic (the concept, not the party) ideals AND you still vote for him/her over an opponent you might find objectionable but still within the bounds of understanding and respecting liberal democracy - the fallout is on you. I'm still hoping he'll just be an exception historically.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:44 AM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 756
Default

Please define "Liberal democracy."
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 05-05-2018, 02:49 AM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 569
Default

Sorry, I was away for work.

The definition is:

Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised by fair, free and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people.

It's not a political term. It's a classification. The United States from conception is a liberal democracy. Hell, conservatives are the largest proponents of economic liberalism. I'll admit, it's one of the reasons I was laughing my ass off listening to AM radio on my trip back where colloquially it appears at this point Conservatives as a group are just fine with "liberal" as some terrible thing. I'm thinking.... "well fuck... unless you're looking for the divine right of kings and feudalism... you're liberal dude."

Trump, who cannot with any credibility claim he has an interest in separation of powers OR equal protection (which is true both in how he's behaved AND his business dealings prior which were prejudial along racial lines) is NOT a liberal democratic president.

He was elected by a liberal democracy though. So was Erdogan in Turkey. The question is what happens next.

Last edited by D_Yeti_Esquire; 05-05-2018 at 02:54 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 05-05-2018, 02:58 AM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 569
Default

Addendum

On my trip I got to listen to this "expert" rail on the Trump investigation and how the Republican appointee and Republican special investigator had gone off the map. It took 'em about 2 minutes to "what about Obama?" to which I thought...

"Well I dunno, Jeff Sessions hasn't recused himself from that. Maybe if that's a real thing you could... investigate or something."

Conservative talking points on this investigation truly smack of the ugliest kind of group think. The one where rule of law stops applying. Like literally guys. You own the governers, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court AND the people leading the investigations are Republicans who have been doing this for 2 years.

So if you can't start with all those advantages AND respect the process you controlled from the start, can't it just maybe be that this is what it looks like when the most litigious candidate in history with a record of making screwball statements and playing fast and loose with facts runs a campaign? If you can't deal with that, is there any way the other half of the country not represented by this government can actually get a fair legal shake from you? Is it just truth is lies at this point?

Last edited by D_Yeti_Esquire; 05-05-2018 at 03:11 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 05-07-2018, 02:01 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Yeti_Esquire View Post
I'm thinking.... "well fuck... unless you're looking for the divine right of kings and feudalism... you're liberal dude."
Except that "classical liberalism" is WAY different from "modern" liberalism.

And if "liberal" isn't such a bad word, why did many of them replace it with "progressive"?

Progress is fine -- as long as it's the right kind of progress.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 05-07-2018, 08:48 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Except that "classical liberalism" is WAY different from "modern" liberalism.

And if "liberal" isn't such a bad word, why did many of them replace it with "progressive"?

Progress is fine -- as long as it's the right kind of progress.
Because right wing radio has been a thing since the 80's? Please don't tarnish a word into obscurity and then feign ignorance as to why it was rebranded. I mean I'm watching them do the same thing to the word progressive, so this act isn't new. And the term "liberal" used by Conservatives isn't accurate anyway - it's a boogeyman (or most of the posts by my conservative friends about that demographic would indicate.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.