I like to describe my politics as "so conservative you'd think I'm a liberal." I believe very strongly in the idea of America as a place where everyone has the right to live the way they want (to the extent that they're not stepping on the rights of others as a consequence of their lifestyle) because it's just not my business and it's not the government's business.
Like, my position on gay marriage is this. Fundamentally Christianity is kind of no-no on homosexuality, so forcing churches to perform a religious marriage ceremony for a coupling that's incompatible with their religion is wrong. But also churches that do support it should be able to and if you can't find a church to do it then hell, why do you need a church to attain the legal status of marriage anyway?
Transgenderism is a hot button issue recently. I don't "get" it but also it's not my business and it's not anyone else's business how you present yourself to the world, that's your right as an American to decide how you want to live. I don't think it's the government's place to dictate how people should have to live. That's the neutral conservative viewpoint.
On immigration I think it's ridiculously arbitrarily difficult to immigrate legally and that should change. America is a nation of immigrants, the different lifestyles and cultures that forged this place made us stronger and made us our best. Trying to force the country to homogenize on "white" culture is pure evil. It's not the government's place to decide who belongs here
I also think I have something of a responsibility to react with force if hypothetically the government (or a malicious citizens' organization) began to employ force to suppress lifestyles that don't hurt anyone, whether I agree with them or not.
I'm a straight, white country cowboy from Texas and I identify as a conservative... and I don't think dictating lifestyles is something "real" conservatives ought to be getting up to. That's the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism is about keeping your way of life for yourself... not forcing others to have it too. I have a particular way I want to live and I want to be able to live that way. And I want others to be able to live the way they want to live too.
In that light conservatism and liberalism don't seem all that different. And that's why one of the only ways to actually make me mad in a political discussion is to try and make it about labels. Because labels are pretty bullshit. The only thing that separates a true liberal and a true conservative is the way their personal beliefs affect their personal lives. Freedom for all is in everyone's best interest.
"Fuck you I got mine" is a pretty cynical reason to support someone but at least in ikkah's case it's based on something objective and tangible and he doesn't define his Trump support by engaging in insipid culture wars bullshit
I agree with everything else in your post but I don't think this part, namely the latter about businesses hurting themselves, really applies. It depends on the context of course but the clearest example of a company's bigotry not only being ignored but outright rewarded was when Chik Fil A experienced a noticeable bump in business after conservatives rallied around it. The free market policing itself like this seems to work in theory but only if you are operating from the assumption that most people in a given community would be willing to do business with another establishment purely over things like gay wedding cakes
Perhaps I should have made a finer distinction. I don't think refusing to serve someone because they are gay is OK and I don't think it should be legal on that basis alone. However, in the context of a business that is creating artistic works, I don't think you should be required to create an artistic work you disagree with, like a cake that espouses support for gay marriage if you don't personally agree with it.
If your cakes are prefabs and all you're doing is putting icing that says HAPPY WEDDING on them that's different from building a custom cake bearing symbolism that's incompatible with your belief system.
Voting for Trump doesn't put you in his cult. Being a Republican doesn't put you in his cult. Continuing to cheer and defend him after witnessing the damage he's done to this country, the office of the presidency, the rule of constitutional law, the credibility and integrity of our government, the basic decency of our country, and the public faith in our democracy does. It's as simple as that.
Trump is the worst thing to happen to our federal government in modern history. His administration is one of naked corruption. He was a traitor to this country before he was even elected, and once in office immediately began using his authority to consolidate power to enrich himself, punish his enemies, destroy international relationships with Allie's who don't abide corruption, build relationships with hostile nations who RUN on corruption, dismantle the institutions who could stop him, etc.
Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat should be irrelevant. Neither precludes you from valuing the integrity of our nation. If you are a patriot -- hell, if you are just a DECENT HUMAN BEING -- Donald Trump should disgust you to your core.
So, yes. People who still cheer him on are either ignorant or evil. When the ignorance is WILLFUL, the line between the two grows blurry.
Ah, I understand. Just from the original post it seemed you would group all Trump supporters into this group when you only do those who are aware of the facts of the damages made and feel no disgust or problem with what he's doing.
As to when ignorance becomes willful and why it becomes this way, that is still pretty hard to gauge but I agree that at that point their line of reasoning would be more in line with a zealous cultist than with just standard support for a political candidate as a vehicle for the advancement of personal values and interests on the federal level. Just beware ascribing malice and "evil" when plain dumb ignorance can suffice when such specific types are concerned - because evil assumes there's something inherently wrong with the person that cannot be redeemed and is hopeless to engage rationally (which can arguably be true of some people, but it is not an accusation thrown around lightly).
The real weakness of the two-party system is only revealed when one party veers off a cliff into extremism due to being hijacked by a radical populist with deeply worrying authoritarian tendencies: Where else are the members of that party, who remain loyal to the principles it once held before it was taken hostage by a rambling egotistical bigot, to go? Their choices are to defect and embrace the opposition party simply because it's "sane", even if it stands against every principle they believe in; refuse to vote at all and give up their democratic right for lack of a representative in office that reflects their views even slightly; or follow the mob off the cliff and actively support the hostage-taker that snatched their party from them.
Conservatives effectively have no representative party in Congress, and that is a red warning light for US democracy.
I get what you're saying but the issue that people are referring to seems to be referring to people like Sgman. Because for whatever reason for every one of you we get, we get like 10-20 Sgmans (Sgmen? ) and people are really getting frustrated with that.
I personally have no real inherent issues with opposing political views other than a small handful which I'm very passionate about. That's why I consider you one of the best political posters on the site despite disagreeing with you quite frequently. In contrast I find it completely impossible to respect someone like Sgman though because there's no intellectual integrity at all when it comes to debating him. It's impossible to actually discuss anything with him because he'll just deflect, ignore, or outright misinterpret you in order to push his point. Or the ever infuriating debating semantics and derailing the entire thread for 2-3 pages. Also the lack of self awareness he shows when someone dares to argue like him but from the other side of the political spectrum doesn't help his case at all. (To be clear I'm not picking Sgman for any reason other than as an example that most people on the site are going to get. There's plenty of other users who are guilty of the same shit.)
There isn't a debate to be had. Not because reality is slanted towards any particular side, but because the issues are so profound and unprecedented that they bring out the most fundamental of value differences.
At that point the debate isn't about policy, it's about fundamental disagreements over the civil arrangement of the various interest groups of a modern society. The divisions are based on profound things like class, culture, and race, which are postcolonial divisions suppressed by prosperity and a strong middle class civic identity.
At the same time, the law of entropy and how technology or the market rewards niche and bubbles as much as it integrates society suggests we will only become more internally divergent. Social trust is at its lowest point in GSS history and millenials are one of the least trusting generation. Democracy and capitalism just aren't doing well for reasons that are much deeper than the surface rational debate scratches.
then dont post
1: You have no authority to tell me where I can and cannot post. You are not Facepunch staff and thus I have zero obligation to do anything you tell me to. So unless a mod tells me not to, I'll post wherever the hell I damn well please. And nobody on the staff has ever told me not to post in Polidicks since its inception 2 or 3 years ago, so clearly, I'm not breaking any rules.
2: Polidicks is not a debate forum. It's a place to get political news and discuss them. That includes wise-cracks against Trump and leaving comments. You're not required to debate in here, you're only required not to troll and shitpost. We used to have a subforum dedicated to debate and, indeed, I didn't post there. I'm not on Facepunch for debate so why would I post in a forum that existed solely for debate? But Mass Debate disappeared ages ago, soo...
And yet here is a thread intended for debate and you decided to pop in and tell everyone how stupid debating is and how you have no plans to debate. Are you going for gold in the obnoxious olympics? 'Cause you get a 10 from me on dickheadness with that opening spiel.
Not a debate forum?
>Reporting & Posting Guidelines
Because this is a debate forum we expect you to put effort into your posts, ensuring that they contribute positively to the current discussion. If you make a joke, it must be appropriate.
I really did enjoy the discussions on FP for a long time. It was a good place to come by, really get into what the other side thought about issues, test my own conclusions against them, and actively have real debates between real people. I can honestly say that having discussion on things like transgenderism, something that I have essentially no contact with in my normal life, with people who were experiencing it firsthand gave me much bigger breadth of outlook on the question. It was immensely helpful, and softened my view over time.
With that said, I've decided that I'm basically done. I still lurk here and there, respond sometimes, but there's been this overwhelming sense that the right, and Trump especially, is SO incredibly evil that absolutely anything negative about them must be true, and if you dare defend anything, then you're an apologist for everything they stand for, working with evil motives. I simply have no interest in that kind of discussion climate.
I despise Trump. His election played a huge role in me pulling away from politics to a big degree because it demonstrated that people don't really care about real issues. I mean, I've worked under that assumption for years, but I never imagined that it was true to this degree.
So when I see something like a lawsuit suing for immigrant child abuse done under Obama attributed to Trump, I just choose not to respond much of the time now when I would have in the past. Why? Because, like what just recently happened when I spoke up on this very issue, I was attacked for defending Trump. No one gave a single crap that a totally false narrative was being attributed to someone. As long as Trump was going down, then it's all fine and dandy.
And yet you jump to his defense more often than Trump supporters and are somehow even more loathe to criticize him than they are as well. You can't possibly fail to see why poeple lump you in as a Trump supporter, right? You can say you despise him all you want but your actions speak louder than your words.
Somewhat fitting that this post comes from you because man, you are SO missing the point and the reason why your posts tend to get people either riled up or giggling at your expense.
If Trump has pulled you away from politics, then you're contributing to the problem. Part of the reason he won was the massive amount of political apathy
I have limited time and energy, and I really do think that time and energy is better spent contributing positively to those immediately around me. For example, I've started volunteering my extra time with a group that drives down to Mexico to deliver thousands of pounds of food and supplies to orphanages, many of which house kids with severe special needs. I honestly think that putting my mental efforts into something like that is going to have a much greater impact on the world around me than shouting into the abyss that is politics.
You just seem way too okay with the status quo that is the republican parties attempt at identity politics
I'm glad you're doing something with your time, but I honestly don't think you're getting why people are laughing at you so often these days.
So I very rarely agree with anything you say but it's pretty cool of you to do that. If you just feel burned out by the last few years in particular than I can't really blame you, all statistics show that American politics have become rapidly more divisive. I've honestly considered taking a break from Polidicks too since it's really my only outlet for political opinions; I don't post anywhere else and am not really comfortable talking about my politics on social media or offline due to where I live. Part of it is because I think there are people who word my thoughts and opinions and make arguments better than I could, but part of it is definitely feeling like I'm just screaming into the void. So I get it for sure.
That said, you should totally vote Democrat in 2018 and 2020
Honestly, I have good conversations with people on the left pretty consistently in real life, people who I respect and enjoy spending time with. I live in an area that would be the opposite of a bubble. It's filled with people on the left, people of different skin colors, etc. Believe it or not, I've a very personable person. I laugh a lot and am known as the kind of person who gets along with everybody and almost always has a smile on my face. So when I have far left people on the internet tell me I'm an evil Trump apologist who has bad motives, and I compare that to real people I know in real life who don't seem to have any problem having deep meaningful conversations with me, even when we strongly disagree, then the internet people ring a little hollow.
You're welcome to dismiss that. That's perfectly fine, but as the person living it, I can't. So I take the criticisms from those on FP, I listen to them and think about them, and then I compare them to the responses from people in my real life, and I see a massive disconnect, even when talking about the exact same issues.
The only areas I see you focus on in your online discussions are the left. I'm not saying you're not those things, I don't know who you are, but I do know that with all you give me to work with in your online arguments, the only thing I'm actually arguing with in that case, leaves ME with the feeling of dealing with a dishonest person. You can dismiss that, I don't know you after all, you don't owe me any honesty or anything else but that's how I feel discussing with you. Maybe the behaviour you exhibit in real life, and the behaviour you exhibit online are more different that you're willing to admit?
See, I have a hard time seeing that as 'conservative' in any way, shape or form. That may be because these positions have colloquially come to mean something else over the years, but if so, that's a change that happened before either of us were born. The Republican party has made 'conservatism' synonymous with bigotry, corportatist policies and flirtation with fascism, and all of this was true long before Trump. Since Reagan, really. Maybe even before.
You and I tend to see eye to eye on pretty much all of this, and I consider myself liberal. Maybe that makes us more centrist.
What is considered 'conservative' today? Using religion to justify bigotry, a blind support of crony capitalism because of a fear of socialism, a tenuous relationship with quantifiable, verifiable facts and scientific paradigms with decades of painstaking research behind it, and a 'fuck you, I got mine' attitude.
Basically, I think you've mislabeled yourself.
It's generalizing but I've come down to roughly three categories of people who I know still support Trump.
1) Casual Trump supporters: In my experience the bulk of his support. These are people who have never been particularly engaged in politics and only really seem to talk about it when the populist wave rises to meet their concerns. These are people who aren't particularly supportive or advocating of his most extreme policies and opinions but will generally defend him because they feel like he is getting a bad wrap from the media. The argument that America is being laughed at and has been given raw deals by other countries speaks to them because they feel like globalization has left them behind. Convincing people like this is doable as long as you are able to segregate them from social media and traditional media echo chambers. I've talked to many people who voted Trump (my county was overwelmingly red in 2016) who have expressed disappointment in his presidency so far, but the people who get all their news from Fox or their social media which consists of exclusively right wing/far right wing views aren't receiving any of the bad news. You can have a rational discussion with these people and they are still capable of empathy, it just requires extraordinary effort.
2) Hardcore MAGA thumpers: Definitely not as big proportionally as the first category but still fairly common, these are the die-hards who trust Trump explicitly. It is very hard to have a conversation with these types, much less convince them to meet you anywhere near the middle on the results of the Trump presidency. Millions of illegals voted for HRC, who ran a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor, and continues to work with Obama and the Deep State in an active, covert coup attempt against the president. Bad news from Trump? Totally fake, and if it's not, then it was a good thing that it happened. The media constantly ignores the good news even though a simple Google search will show every mainstream source reporting it. Rationality simply doesn't apply here and their entire moral compass spins according to Trump's.
3) Financial pragmatists: The smallest category since it's largely occupied by those wealthy enough to benefit from Trump's (Republican's) fiscal and economic policies and remain shielded from the negative aspect of his presidency and their agenda. This is occupied by people like Tudd and ikkah who are generally rational and quite capable of empathy and are generally in it for the financial benefits; the memes and culture war stuff is just a bonus. Admittedly though I might be giving Tudd here more credit than I should be; I still can't tell if his culture war posts were just to rile up FP or of it's stuff he genuinely believed in. Most think he was trolling though. In any case, you can have a rational discussion with these people and they will even genuinely agree that parts of Trump's presidency have been bad but you will never convince them with a platform that appeals to most other people because their concerns don't really align with the average persons, or the average FPer in this instance.
In summary I don't think the majority of Trump supporters are actually devoid of empathy or rationality. I've said many times that I come from a deeply red county in the southern US and have talked to many, many Trump supporters and the vast majority of them have been rational and given me no reason to suspect that they are incapable of feeling for the plight of others. It just depends on how open their world view is and how willing you are to invest time into them to convince them that their sources of data are not always, or even generally, accurate or fair.
I don't know, man. I think if you sat most moderate conservatives down and talked them through everything I said they would agree with you. This sums up conservatism pretty well:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary government and property rights with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity[2] while the more extreme elements called reactionaries oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
Political labels in general are really blurry and hard to define when you start getting down to the brass tacks, and I would put myself down as more of a centrist than anything - or a libertarian - though I avoid both of those terms because one is seen as spineless and the other as insane.
I think the recognition that you don't know me, and that I don't know you, is an important one. Take my arguments at face value and don't assume greater intent behind them because you don't know me, and I'll try to do the same. I know for a fact that I come across differently here than I do in real life because this is a political discussion board and not a life simulator. If you took my political discussions out of my real life, alone, and separated them from the rest of my life, then it would look a lot like my posts on FP, but that doesn't happen in real life. Everything I say political is inherently in the context of everything else.
I think the biggest reason for the difference between the two is that those in real life know me as a person. They know how I treat people in real life. They see my actions. So when I say something that they might immediately find offensive or hard to swallow, they don't assume anything greater. Even when they can't understand how I could possibly hold that view after talking about it, they still respect me as a person, and I do the same. They don't assume bad intent because they know my intent from the way I live my life. We can leave the table with a handshake and smile after vehemently disagreeing because we see each other as whole people and not an amalgamation of individual political points.
To be completely honest, I find that despite many of our posts being disagreeable in the ones you actually do make sense, your posts are either completely ignored or misinterpreted. However, you may find that such misinterpretations of what you mean can be avoided by putting effort into clarifying what you're talking about right off the bat - even when people arguing against you do so in bad faith.
Communication is the act of conveying meaning through words or actions, in the absence of the latter you should put as much effort as you can in the former. It is as much your failure in properly explaining what you mean and not falling into traps like semantic nitpicking, as it is a failure of certain people to take your arguments in good faith - assuming what you mean in the absence of you properly clarifying it yourself. All parties are at fault here, but you can only have control of yourself in such engagements, so at least do your part to the best of your ability.
Honestly, it's not that far-fetched.
My great-grandmother was a conservative Republican.
She ran a Circle K in a bad part of town, earned people's respect just by being a nice lady (and you didn't curse in Grand-ma's store).
She once had some asshole try to get her to sign a petition to keep "the colored kids" off of the public school bus. She said "that's not your bus, the city pays for that bus, if they want to let them ride, then let them ride!", and when told "But they stink!" (back then water wasn't always available in the poorer parts of town) she told him "Then let them bathe!"
She was a devout Baptist, but had no problem with gay people what-so-ever, commenting that some of the nicest people she ever met were some gay neighbors she had.
But she wasn't afraid to call people out on their bullshit, despite her kind demeanor.
Fuck with her kids, and you unleashed hell upon yourself in the fury that Mamaw hath wrought.
When asked what she thought of GHWB and how he was doing, her response was "I'd just like to get him down here and kick his ass 'till he fell down!"
She knew the GOP was moving towards the direction they are now (cutting benefits/social security, fucking the poor, etc.) and she didn't like it one bit.
She'd have had a stroke if she managed to live to recent times and seen fucking Trump as president (she sure as hell didn't like him one damn bit).
I am certain that you're right. I try to be clear, think about the words I'm using, etc., but I'm sure I'm not nearly as clear as I think I am in many cases. I have no history with writing beyond high school, and don't see myself as an exceptional writer. Thank you for your point, and I'll give it more effort in the future.
With that said, I'm always open to clarifying questions. I think the desire to understand each other accurately is absolutely key in any good faith discussion.
I've actually pointed this out to him on multiple occasions but his response, if he even bothers acknowledging it, is that it isn't his responsibility. Which is of course blatantly retarded.
At the end of the day, this is what hillary and bernie voters are after too. The issue really is dishonesty, if you want your taxes low, whatever, but it gets pretty bad to see people engage in gymnastics about his legal philosophy, foreign policy, etc. in order to protect their asses and minimize the true costs of their voting preferences.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
