Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Dogmatism is always wrongheaded.

Be it "this is a Christian nation!", or, " support our troops!", or any other typically rightwing mantra, the "conservativism is teh evulz!", " its just the Republicans blocking every good thing proposed!", and "we gotta get our guy in!" Are just as bad.

When your view of the issues are monochrome caricatures, there is no thinking, and no real planning.

Maybe the republicans didn't like the proposal because it is not self funding, and thus not sustainable in the face of population growth? Oh no, its because "the Republicans block everything good that gets proposed", et all.

Of course, the Republicans aren't any better today.

When neither side wants to accept useful feedback from the other on the reasons for opposition, when both sides make a morality play out of opposing the other, and when both sides make habitual practice of just whipping up angry mobs every 4 years instead of being a healthy, cooperative government that wants informed voters, you end up with the shit we have now.

Seriously, all you need is a healthy dose of SciFi and you have vorlons vs shadows, with eveyone else telling them to get lost and stop dragging them to war.

Here's the thing though - if you say "It's all the fault of the conservatives," you're probably dogmatic. But if you think (like I do, and like Frumple does IIRC) that conservatives have worked to prevent liberal legislature designed to help the working man, that's not necessarily dogmatic. People who say things like "any criticism of my beliefs is just THOUGHT-POLICING" or "calling any political ideology generally incorrect, detrimental, or wrong is dogmatism" are taking a rule of thumb too far.

[wierd]

Don't get me wrong doze, the Republican party is not a group of misunderstood saints.

The point is that the Democratic party is likewise, not a group of misunderstood saints.

Pointing either out and showing how they are lacking does not exonerate the other's faults.

Additionally, when both parties actively block legislation penned by the other group, on grounds it was penned by the other group (and not due to specific deficiencies in the legislation), then dogmatism is reigning supreme.

If there are specific deficiencies cited, then going "disagree therefore wrong!" Is again, dogmatism reigning supreme.

The proper action is mutual compromise, and to preempt the zealous, no-- when your opposition dogmatically rejects your attempts at doing the right thing, that is not license to reciprocate in incorrect, dogmatic behavior.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

You occurred, insulted me profusely, then made a bunch of fallacies. I'm not sure which is worse. But we're moving on, so -

Very well, would you rather we talk through PMs? I'm quite at a loss as to what it is which is I that has occurred and would much appreciate knowing what it is, so that we may avoid hostilities in future. For sure, I thought our conversation was rather light hearted, unless you adhere to the Jedi religion.

I'm at a loss too, so I figure we could just move on. I think I misinterpreted you and then got all defensive.

Oh, come on, this again? I have two explanations that may sway you from your incessant demonization:

• Poe's Law, except for smug liberals.
• Get a sense of humor you British basement-dweller. It wasn't that funny, but... imagine that I had said WAKE UP SHEEPLE, STEEL FUEL CAN'T MELT JET BEAMS instead. You'd know that I was kidding, right? The issue with pretending-to-be-a-smug-liberal-as-seen-by-LW is that a. it's too similar to liberals, it's something that people could actually say seriously and b. he already sees me as a smug liberal. Too close to home basically.

Basically, when in doubt, assume that I'm being tongue-in-cheek. You'll usually be right.  ▲√╕

It is a great source of amusement to me that you make such great notions of general offence whilst complaining I don't share your sense of humour, which is to say the least, as flattering as calling someone a British basement-dweller.

thats_the_joke.png

I'll stop the meta-mockery now, I promise, but the "British basement-dweller" was... supposed to be humor of some sort? I'm not actually good at this humor thing, and I should remember that.

What is the joke if not merely mocking someone else

The humor is that I am pretending to be the smug liberal, I guess it's a joke at the smug liberal's expense, but it certainly wasn't at yours.

if so, why are you so wounded when others point out the very obvious - you are unironically portraying the smug liberal.

*ugh* nobody understands my shitty art, I was ironically portraying the smug liberal. You were accusing me of being smug, which was an ATTACK and got me all defensive.

What is for b. cannot even be said to be true, as I see you as nobody in particular, the only forumite for whom I hold an ascribed personality to is Necro910 who was banned many moons ago for spamming Magma throughout the forums - a very memorable personality.

You saw me as smug. A smug liberal. Didn't you literally just say this?

General tip for life is that if you wish to unload bants, learn bants first. If you're going to pretend you're the great pretender, don't be so shocked when others draw obvious parallels with Jojo's bizarre adventure.

I like to pretend that I understand humor. Sometimes it isn't even pretend. Sometimes.

Leaders coming from the workers instead of the rich elite who got their degrees by virtue of inheritance? That sounds great, LW. I'm totally agreeing with you. Do you know why? It's because you aren't directing any personal attacks at me, and so I'm able to consider your points instead of getting angry and defensive. I never thought that I would be able to teach a non-troll about Internet etiquette, but here I am, explaining that insulting and attacking people is not a good idea. *sigh* My five-year-old brother could tell you that.

It's honestly disappointing in this day and age that the boundaries of what is trolling has become "stuff I don't like".

Except it hasn't because trolling is intentionally sowing discord, and it really seemed like you were trying to start a flame war.

There is a very simple question to ask here, who is Loud Whispers? Who is Dozebom Lolumzalis? These are not people, these are nobodies. There is simply no personality to attack

...that's why it's so astonishing that you've managed to attack me.

and I've yet even to see where I have attacked you.

By calling me a smug liberal, duh.

I could point to where you have done so me, but even when you're calling me a British basement dweller there is no me there to attack, it is pointless.

Pre-emptive retaliation No, not really, I felt like you had attacked me so I made a sort-of-humorous jab that wasn't actually humorous and was really just an attack. Yeah.

I find it bemusing that you are incapable of considering my points, getting angry and defensive with yourself

Ahahaha, you find it "bemusing", sounds like a troll to me. You just happen to insult me so that I get angry, then you find the results "bemusing."

- simply put, your conduct fits the definition of troll, mine does not.

I assure you that I don't want a fight, I thought you were fighting, I only shot you because I thought you were trying to punch me.

By your own admission your conduct was a deliberate attempt at being insincere, playing the smug liberal so as to mock your "enemy" - or else you were unironically being the smug liberal caricature. Either way, your advice to develop a sense of humour is much appreciated, if you appreciate it with me :P

It was sincere and mocking humor. Sincere in that I didn't have a SECRET AGENDA, mocking in that all humor is a twisted mockery of reality. It's how comedy works, and it's why we're fighting over a joke - because all humor reveals the twisting of the author's view. DEEEEEEEEEP amiright?

Consider this DL, I got along greatly with mainiac who would say stuff like I should fucking think for once e.t.c., and I much respected mainiac despite our relatively polar opposite mannerisms (and our completely adversarial stance on international fishing rights & maritime claims).

How do you even do that?

We are much more similar, as far as I can tell agree on most all everything, yet something about who I am is a dreadful occurrence to you.

Again, I thought you were attacking me. I guess I'm a bit too neurotic.

Idk what is occurring, and I should stress there has been no sarcasm in all I've written thus far. Except the one thing about Jedi.

Oh... you must admit that you present a kind of... ironic? tone in your long rants...

really we should have more grinches bah humbuggering their own sides for acting quite the bellends (regardless of what their foes are doing!)

That's hardly a blessed vocation, though, you'll find that the most bitter and hateful people will enjoy tearing people apart. What we need is criticism, useful and constructive criticism, of both sides.

Don't get me wrong doze, the Republican party is not a group of misunderstood saints.

The point is that the Democratic party is likewise, not a group of misunderstood saints.

Pointing either out and showing how they are lacking does not exonerate the other's faults.

The hell? I'm a far leftist, I should know this already! It's like I have a little liberal toeing the party line in my mind, sitting in the box labeled "compromise".

Additionally, when both parties actively block legislation penned by the other group, on grounds it was penned by the other group (and not due to specific deficiencies in the legislation), then dogmatism is reigning supreme.

Well sure the conservatives are dogmatic but the liberals can do nothing wrong. /snarc

If there are specific deficiencies cited, then going "disagree therefore wrong!" Is again, dogmatism reigning supreme.

Would this be the fallacy fallacy? You made an error therefore your point is invalid and nothing you say matters...

[Luke_The_Hungry]

Snip

Ah, very true. In fact I meet someone exactly as you describe on a semi regular basis, so I can't make a claim that ALL conservative are as I describe them. I was more lamenting those that do, or otherwise dismiss environmentalism out of an idea that "we aren't doing anything", while a city covered in smog should be enough to disprove that notion.

@Enviormentalism effecting the poor: this seems like a problem solved by addressing other issues to put the poor in a better position, rather than blaming regulation and green energy.

[Frumple]

[snip]

... prices are one thing, yes. And businesses et al will indeed try to dump the costs harder on the folks that can't fight back (which is where the other side of regulation comes in, but that's a different discussion, probably). Harm involves a lot of other things. Regulation can indeed lead to higher costs, but the lack leads to... well, as noted. Flaming tap water, and that among the more benign shit that goes down.

Or I guess to put in another way, when I'm talking who gets hurt the most, I ain't talkin' solar panels or 20% electric bill increases. I'm talking toxic waste disposal in your back yard or water supply, and your local air pretty literally killing you. Your local land being destabilized by chunks of mountain being bored out without much concern of what happens next or where the crap that got dug out goes. The nearby breakwater and related infrastructure not being properly maintained for when the next hurricane rolls in (sup new orleans). Etc., so forth, so on. The costs may be felt harder by the poor but the hurt of what it's stopping is, too, and it ain't a difference of much equity. For other demographics, they might feel the costs as an annoyance, but they also barely, if at all, feel the effects of the rest of it -- for some of the richer folks, you might actually be able to make the argument that it's a net negative for 'em (short term, anyway), for all it's barely an effect even then, generally. Poor folks... not so much. Cheaper water only does so much when the water kills you. Cheaper power only does so much when the air kills you. And on, and on, and on

Least for me, I still kinda' remember the nineties and some of the shit that was still happening even then, and live with folks dealing with what the glorious olden days of less regulation meant (it meant COPD when you got older because the asbestos fucked your lungs, by the by, as an example). And have lived edge of poverty all my life. The price stuff... that don't speak to me. It'd fucking suck but I could deal with a 20% price hike in power, maybe by having everything off most of the time or somethin', but it'd be doable (and beyond that, folks down here have been dealing with nickel and dime increases on that stuff for years; it sucks, we kvetch like a sumbitch, but something gets tightened somewhere and things largely keep getting by, if worse than before). I can't live if the jackfucks poison the gulf with oil again, taint the local aquifers, or start doing stuff to the air worse than paper mill stench.

[Max™]

What always got me was that the rejection of Climate Change must also include the rejection of environmentalism as a whole. While I believe in global warming, my first concern is with renewable resources, less pollution, and caring about the environment because these things also have an immediate effect on us, not just long term things. But when brought up  the answer is that we shouldn't care about this is because...global warming is a hoax? Why do these things HAVE to be connected?

Indeed, and why is it apparently exclusively based on political positions? I mean, if we could tow our waste beyond the environment that would be great, but we can't. People assuming a position exclusively based on what box they check when voting is awful.

I'm not sure what defines a college as liberal here either. Might need some conservative perspective on this one.

Rockphed is right about the research though, you'd have to look at many colleges, big and small, world famous and only locally (or just within some circles) well known, rich and poor, Big City small town, urban and rural, coastal and inland, north and south, east and west (of the Mississippi), and any other relevant variables you can think of to get a good view of how things got the way they are.

There's also the whole thing where conservative students probably aren't as dominated by their feefees and wanting to get a degree in mayan basket weaving theory or whatever nonsense is in these days.

'feefees'?

Basically the reason I hate liberals so much more than conservatives. It's worse watching skinny jean wearing douchebags take over your "side" of things, but I can't adopt positions so far from my central point that more socialism is needed, and indeed that capitalism is going to try to kill us all if we don't kill it first, so left I must remain... as lame as those on that side tend to be.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

What are we talking about? It looks like the pages upon pages of YOU'RE A SMUG LIEBRAL and YOU'RE MAKING ME ANGRY YOU WOULDN'T LIKE ME WHEN I'M ANGRY have finally stopped.

Spoiler: I didn't read any of it because ugggghhhh

LW stopped talking to me, I realized that most people weren't attacking me and that I didn't have the best viewpoint from which to observe liberalism, I realized that LW was trolling, and the conversation moved on. Now we're discussing liberalism in colleges, and trying to figure out why things are the way they are.

ugggggghhh I agree, I'd hate that British troll if it weren't half my fault and if he didn't make NECROBACON

This is why people attribute smug self-assurance to liberals.

You mean how they make their little comics about the other side being STUPID and their side being SMART? Yep...

"You're smug and self-assured." -> "No I'm not, reality has a liberal bias."

Those two don't match up. First, what did the liberal do to be called smug? Are they saying that somebody is wrong? Oh, the horror! A disagreement! And somebody thinks that they're right! *facepalm*

And the "reality has a liberal bias" is based on how the liberals see the conservatives, they see SJWs and we see the alt-right and Conservapedia.

"I disagree with you, this is why." -> "You're just a troll!"

Haha, you left out the "you are a smug liberal" part in the LW-quote. I was calling him a troll because he was attacking me and trying to get me riled up, then being amused by the results. Not because he disagreed. In fact, we mostly agreed, so this is just so incredibly wrong. But I suppose that the previous sentence was "too smug" so who cares anyway.

"The leftist core is smug and arrogant." -> "Yeah but so's the right!"

*sigh* It all depends on context. If a conservative says that leftists are smug, it has an underlying message of "we're better than they are."

Believing yourself to be the lesser asshole does not make it okay to be an asshole. When you are accused of dismissing all dissenting opinions out-of-hand and you blindly dismiss the accusation as trolling, there might be something worth pondering there.

First off, I've already noted that I saw an attack where there might not have been any, but I guess we can ignore that post, right? After all, if somebody is wrong and then realizes that this is the case, the proper solution is to KEEP BEATING THAT DEAD HORSE, it's not like that'll alienate people or anything. Right?

Second, I didn't call him a troll because he disagreed, I called him a troll because he tried to start a flame-war, or at least that's how I saw it. I read his post in a sleepy stupor and immediately switched to DANGER ATTACK INCOMING mode.

[wierd]

Doze:

No, it is exactly the way I said it. "Disagree, therefore wrong."

This has multiple pathologies.  Here is a short, but not comprehensive list:

1) I disagree with your position. My opinion is more important than yours(because it is mine, naturally), so whatever justification you may have to disagree with me is just plain wrong.(ex, religious objection to same sex marriages)

2) I disagree with your position on this thing, and that thing makes you worse than Hitler, so therefore wrong.(on everything)
(A very specific, but frequent form of #1. Often used in retort to the cited example of #1)

3)(classic argumentum ad populum) Your objection flies in the face of public opinion, therefore wrong.

It is a fallacy because a thing does not need to placate your sensibilities to be true.

[uber pye]

Basically the reason I hate liberals so much more than conservatives. It's worse watching skinny jean wearing douchebags take over your "side" of things, but I can't adopt positions so far from my central point that more socialism is needed, and indeed that capitalism is going to try to kill us all if we don't kill it first, so left I must remain... as lame as those on that side tend to be.

That sorta brings up a topic i was talking to friends about today, when will a universal wage(you always get $N/week from the government) be necessary?

I was thinking it would be something needed when automation takes over more industries, like how self driving car technologies could wipe out a good sized chunk of the economy by taking over any jobs that involve moving a thing from point A to point B.

[Tawa]

*facepalm*

*sigh*

If you don't want to be called smug, you should start by not facepalming at your own strawmen and not sighing at your opponent's arguments. Bluntly, it makes you sound like a dick.

[wierd]

A basic wage, without some form of income cap to limit polarization of the market, (I would say that no employee can earn more than 1% of the product of any enterprise, and must always be paid in taxable currency, and not as stocks or other options would suffice), will only widen the income gap and be fuel for opposition by the remaining working middle class. (The narrative that the min assured income is disproportionately levied against the working middle will be a favored cudgel of the wealthy to do away with it, so keeping the wealthy close to the middle class helps remove the false implications of 'if only you weren't hamstrung, slaving away to support those free riders, you could be opulently wealthy like me!!' from the table, and limits the power of that class to lobby govt disproportionate to their stake in society.)

It really needs to be enacted now. Not later.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The most common job in the United States is truck driver. Guess what job already has a system that can replace the human element entirely?

The one and only obstacle is refueling. If there's actual damage the truck can detect it and call for help. All you need is to make an agreement with truck stops to keep a fuel attendant on hand. Or just start producing refueling machines. Opening a gas cap is not the robotics advent of the century.

[Max™]

Yup, and for clarity I'm not saying that I hate conservatives, I disagree with them, but, well, Goblins put it well.

"When two good creatures fight they assume the other to be evil, but when two evil creatures fight they don't assume the other to be good, they just... disagree."

Someone who is supposed to be on my side but represents the vile sort of douchebaggery that is hipsterism, it's easier to write them off as evil than discuss where we disagree.

A basic wage, without some form of income cap to limit polarization of the market, (I would say that no employee can earn more than 1% of the product of any enterprise, and must always be paid in taxable currency, and not as stocks or other options would suffice), will only widen the income gap and be fuel for opposition by the remaining working middle class. (The narrative that the min assured income is disproportionately levied against the working middle will be a favored cudgel of the wealthy to do away with it, so keeping the wealthy close to the middle class helps remove the false implications of 'if only you weren't hamstrung, slaving away to support those free riders, you could be opulently wealthy like me!!' from the table, and limits the power of that class to lobby govt disproportionate to their stake in society.)

It really needs to be enacted now. Not later.

Indeed, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't let capitalism realize we're trying to strangle it.

[Luke_The_Hungry]

Indeed, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't let capitalism realize we're trying to strangle it.

Simple: Sell it as a convenience. Accumulate all other entitlement systems into this single program instead, say that it'll cost everyone less because it's only one program (when the real cost saving is less administration cross the board), small business don't have to deal with stuff like medicae or unemployment because the government is just flat out writing a check for everyone, It's more fair because everyone is getting something, the poor and the sick are still getting the funds they need, middle class are just getting back what they're buying into it, and the only people who are paying into it is the rich.

[Rolepgeek]

Minimum guaranteed income (as usually thought of) is a bad idea for one basic reason.

You have a 100% tax rate on all earnings below that threshold.