Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Conservatives from before Reagan created the Frankenstein's monster trinity of religious right-business right-hawks that is neoconservatism. Think Barry Goldwater.

[Reelya]

Well, to be honest, the term is reactionary to Neoconservatism. Paleo of course meaning "old", they are claiming the mantle of the true heirs of the conservative tradition, as opposed to those newfangled conservatives running around mucking everything up.

They are in fact claiming to be conservo-conservatives, so it is in fact very meta.

[Lord Shonus]

The thing is, bloop, that some of these people are saying that being accused of attempting to rape a teenager is making them more likely to vote for someone.

A lot of those people will, if questioned, will tell you that the liberals must fear him greatly if they are resorting to such underhanded and blatant lies.


This is the #1 problem in politics these days - both sides have worked so hard to spin media narratives that a great many people have no ability to identify the difference between genuine and fabricated stories. The huge amount of the media outlets that right-leaning people and organizations have been snapping up over the last two decades is starting to tip the landscape badly, even though this isn't really a one-side-only issue.

[RedKing]

I have to strongly disagree with you, RedKing. Your statements are equivalent to somebody from the East Coast hating somebody from the West or wherever because they were raised differently.

If you've been subjected from birth to one point of view from your family members, your friends, and the media and literature you read/listen to, you tend to adopt that point of view. Humans are impressionable beings; if someone is born in a Christian family, they are raised a Christian and adopt Christian values. If they were born in a Muslim family, they are raised a Muslim and adopt Muslim values. If they were born in a Conservative family, they are raised a Conservative and adopt Conservative values. Attempting to convince someone who was a Conservative from the time they were born to become a Liberal by hating them for what they were taught since childhood is the perfect way to do the exact opposite of what you want.

Think about it -- if you or I were raised in an average Alabama family we would probably believe many things that the average Alabama family believe. These people believe the "fake news" narrative and many other narratives put forth by Republicans because that's the only thing they know. If they think these allegations are fake news (and many allegations are, if not this one specifically), they will believe that they are fake news, and vote for the man anyway. It is completely incorrect to degrade these people's intelligence or morality. They believe what they think is right because that is what they learned to believe.

Yeah, I guess you missed the part where I said I was raised in rural NC. In a moderately conservative, Christian household no less. And for the first 16 years or so, I was part of that world. I wore fatigues to school during the First Gulf War and proclaimed loudly that anybody protesting the war should be thrown in jail or even shot because MURRICA. Also, because my father was in the military, and so I could play the part of the aggrieved, disrespected patriot. There was a certain gleeful power that came with that, and I could use it like a blunt object to shut up anybody who disagreed with me. The fact that he was nowhere close to being in danger, or that I only barely knew the man and saw him like once, twice a year was immaterial.

So you tell me how I ended up a liberal socialist Taoist polyamorous bisexual? It sure as shit wasn't through people playing guitar at me and singing Kum Ba Ya.


@Dunamsideos: See above. When I was a teenager, I absolutely should have been written off. I was a douchebag using 'patriotism' as a power trip. And my 'conversion', if you will, came about through experience and through self-realization, not from caring, understanding liberals gently convincing me of the rightness of their cause. If anything, Republicans did the most to convert me by being blatantly hypocritical assholes. (I'm an independent, incidentally, because Democrats regularly do enough stupid, greedy shit to remind me why I can't wear their label either).

Do I want to lessen corruption and racism? Absolutely. Do I think the way to do that is to softpedal arguments because I might hurt someone's feelings? Fuck that noise. If there's anything good about the Age of Trump, it's that we can dispense with the veneer of politeness that has allowed people to get away with shit for way too long.

@Reelya: I saw an article today that Jared is challenging his sentence by invoking 'sovereign citizen' status. Yet another pedo joins the ranks of the alt-right.

[smjjames]

I thought paleoconservative meant they wanted to go back even further into the past, heh.

Ordoliberalism is apparently a German variant of social liberalism and the Ordo part actually refers to an academic journal.

[RedKing]

I thought paleoconservative meant they wanted to go back even further into the past, heh.

Ordoliberalism is apparently a German variant of social liberalism and the Ordo part actually refers to an academic journal.

I'm greatly disappointed it doesn't have something to do with House Ordos from Dune II.

[Reelya]

Oh but it can. Everybody redefines terms to suit themselves already, you can too RedKing just by saying it is so.

[RedKing]

Oh but it can. Everybody redefines terms to suit themselves already, you can too RedKing just by saying it is so.

My God, you're right.

True Ordoliberalism has never been tried (if only because we lack enough Mentats).

[bloop_bleep]

Yeah, I guess you missed the part where I said I was raised in rural NC. In a moderately conservative, Christian household no less. And for the first 16 years or so, I was part of that world. I wore fatigues to school during the First Gulf War and proclaimed loudly that anybody protesting the war should be thrown in jail or even shot because MURRICA. Also, because my father was in the military, and so I could play the part of the aggrieved, disrespected patriot. There was a certain gleeful power that came with that, and I could use it like a blunt object to shut up anybody who disagreed with me. The fact that he was nowhere close to being in danger, or that I only barely knew the man and saw him like once, twice a year was immaterial.

So you tell me how I ended up a liberal socialist Taoist polyamorous bisexual? It sure as shit wasn't through people playing guitar at me and singing Kum Ba Ya.

Sure, but you can't blame other people for not copying you. Perhaps you were able to realize that you wanted to convert but not everyone did. It's hard to change your point of view when it's been beaten into you for years; insulting people over something they have almost no control over (their environment) is just not right.

[redwallzyl]

Oh but it can. Everybody redefines terms to suit themselves already, you can too RedKing just by saying it is so.

My God, you're right.

True Ordoliberalism has never been tried (if only because we lack enough Mentats).

Vocabulary is powerful. Just look at the connotations of certain words related to politics that republicans love to spout like regulations and event the word liberal. We need to beat them at their game by using our own words to avoid their control of the vocabulary.

Also I'm disappointed their not called the Ordnungliberals. That would be hilarious.

[Dunamisdeos]

My argument is that by disregarding civility we make it less likely for someone to have the same chance you had to escape that life. By providing them with confirmation that their enemies hate them just for being who they are, or being raised where they were, or because their family believes the "wrong" thing, we confirm their beliefs. A nation that elected Trump is the ultimate and inevitable result of that kind of thinking.

Dropping what we consider to be a veneer of politeness only makes us more likely to adopt a crusader mindset, where anything goes as long as we can hurt a faceless enemy to gratify our sense of heroism. This will only add fuel to the fire we're trying to fight, and we've been building that fire through this method for generations.

We have to actually get into who they are, why they are, accept that they are people rather than object caricatures, and then be a positive example of what they are not. It's hard and it goes against everything we venerate in American culture, but really, isn't that what needs to change in the end?

[RedKing]

My argument is that by disregarding civility we make it less likely for someone to have the same chance you had to escape that life. By providing them with confirmation that their enemies hate them just for being who they are, or being raised where they were, or because their family believes the "wrong" thing, we confirm their beliefs. A nation that elected Trump is the ultimate and inevitable result of that kind of thinking.

Dropping what we consider to be a veneer of politeness only makes us more likely to adopt a crusader mindset, where anything goes as long as we can hurt a faceless enemy to gratify our sense of heroism. This will only add fuel to the fire we're trying to fight, and we've been building that fire through this method for generations.

We have to actually get into who they are, why they are, accept that they are people rather than object caricatures, and then be a positive example of what they are not. It's hard and it goes against everything we venerate in American culture, but really, isn't that what needs to change in the end?

You act as though we've been having a Communist pogrom against conservatives for the last 40 years. If anything, liberals have been too damn obsessed with "finding common ground" while their opponents are only concerned with doubling down on the crazy and exploiting power whenever they can hold it, including rewriting the rules (through gerrymandering and through literal rules changes) to consolidate their position. Why should I want to find common ground with such a person?


Let's see....turning the other cheek, trying to be bipartisan, seems like we had a President that tried that about 8 years ago. Remind me how that turned out?

[Madman198237]

To intervene, hopefully without lighting off another argument:

I have entirely different opinions from many people on here, but I don't really care to intervene because politics are full of corruption and pure stupidity almost no matter where you look. Wait, never mind the "almost". No matter where you look.


Speaking of my different opinions: I disagree, RedKing. I think that by saying those things you prove the viewpoints of the OTHER side, with which I more closely (In the loosest political sense) associate---I am more "Republican" than "Democrat", and when I see Democrats claiming such things, perhaps I find it to be laughable. Perhaps I see you saying these things and believe that you are the wrong, overly partisan, gazing-with-rose-tinted-glasses-at-everything-on-your-side, generally despicable human being.

Or perhaps I'm merely trying to point out that different points of view exist, and that I really should be doing homework instead of waxing philosophical.

[Rolan7]

Having an unpopular viewpoint is fine, even laudable in a way.  Both sides have merits.
Claiming "both sides have merit" as if it's a refutation is lazy pedantry.  To paraphrase:  Claim something or get off the pot.
By taking a stand, you are vulnerable to refutation, but you're attempting a point.  That's much preferable to pointless equivocation.

[RedKing]

To intervene, hopefully without lighting off another argument:

I have entirely different opinions from many people on here, but I don't really care to intervene because politics are full of corruption and pure stupidity almost no matter where you look. Wait, never mind the "almost". No matter where you look.


Speaking of my different opinions: I disagree, RedKing. I think that by saying those things you prove the viewpoints of the OTHER side, with which I more closely (In the loosest political sense) associate---I am more "Republican" than "Democrat", and when I see Democrats claiming such things, perhaps I find it to be laughable. Perhaps I see you saying these things and believe that you are the wrong, overly partisan, gazing-with-rose-tinted-glasses-at-everything-on-your-side, generally despicable human being.

Or perhaps I'm merely trying to point out that different points of view exist, and that I really should be doing homework instead of waxing philosophical.

And you have every right to voice that disagreement. As long as -- as Rolan put it -- it's a genuinely-held, well-considered view and not merely the bullshit "both sides suck" stance that people take so that they can seem above the fray (and avoid having to put their political stance out there for attack). Both sides *do* suck, but they absolutely do not suck equally. It's a pretty distinct suckitude gap.

One side has gone to pretty considerable lengths to disavow themselves of sexual predators in their midst, and you've seen the careers of Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Anthony Weiner come crashing down in pretty remarkably short amounts of time (although honestly, Weiner should have been persona non grata much sooner). The other side is trying to elect another one to Federal office.


Without some solid positions, the second part of your statement comes off as "I know you are, but what am I?"

And for the record, I never claimed to be a "good" person. I may even be a "generally despicable human being". But by the gods, I'm sick of watching this country make progress forward (economically and socially) only for it to be undone, time and again, by a batch of ignorant, greedy fools.