In American culture the individual is eternally at war with community and inextricably intertwined with selfishness. The two are out of balance.
Yet paradoxically individualism has become as intertwined with tribal membership; each passing decade defines the self more as part of as selected tribe. Race is but one of these.
In American culture the individual is eternally at war with community and inextricably intertwined with selfishness. The two are out of balance.
Yet paradoxically individualism has become as intertwined with tribal membership; each passing decade defines the self more as part of as selected tribe. Race is but one of these.
The declaration of independence and the Preamble to the Constitution made clear that each individual has inalienable rights and that cooperation via the government is the mechanism to realize Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. The fact that many people trash individual rights in favor of group rights does not alter the Declaration or the Preamble. Nor, does the fact that many people believe that no cooperation with others required for there to be an context for individual rights to exist negate the need to cooperate. We have reached the point where the Left is at war with individual rights and the Right is at war with cooperation. That polarization is a formula for national destruction, but neither the Left nor the Right gives a damn about that -- the only thing either the other extreme wants is to vanguish the other
Flowery words in documents centuries old mean little in a world where truth itself has lost value. These documents are interpreted however people want and bad people take the greater liberties.
How is "the left" at war with individual rights? Is it they seeking to ban books or are you talking about private ownership of military weapons?
I am a communitarian. I adhere to neither ideology but see the right of citizens to lead reasonably stable and predictable lives as more important than stirring phrases from times as close to the middle ages as to the present day.
The coin whose obverse is freedom has responsibility as its reverse. We love to prattle about the one and are enraged at the other.
Why do you think this? What are you basing this on? I disagree. Literally anything that isn't needlessly antagonistic. I'm getting tired of tone-policing you Chris. I'm sure you're getting tired of me doing it too.
I know you can manage polite discourse, even when you disagree. You manage it with me and Dave and a few others here on a regular basis. The tone and atmosphere here is extremely important to the overall quality of conversation. Please, *please* bear that in mind as you comment. You can't say I haven't asked you numerous times.
Yeah you've admonished me and yeah I've listened but this one I don't understand. Sorry but to my mind "where do you get this nonsense?" is just not that offensive, to me it isn't offensive at all. If someone wrote that to me it would elicit no reaction. Doesn't sound antagonistic to me; aghast, maybe, but not at the level of "you fucking jerk" as we see in most online forums. It isn't even "where do you get this bullshit?" Sorry, but I am just not tracking this time.
Because it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible position; if anyone is trying to destroy freedoms it isn't any imaginary Teh Left, it's the book-banners.
I concede I get kind of pissed at the whole bothsides thing. I disown those SJWs that the other side calls Left.
OK, I'll dial it down even further, or maybe I'll do as I already do most of the time and just stop the conversation at that point.
тАЬBecause it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible positionтАЭ
ThatтАЩs just it, IтАЩd like to have heard what Rick had to say in defence of this position. Instead, he was pretty clearly offended and checked out.
But I donтАЩt think the position is indefensible. A little hyperbolic, as most of us are guilty of on the internet from time to time, but if I had to guess, IтАЩd say he was referring to the leftтАЩs penchant for identity politics and big government.
Also things like the more onerous COVID policy decisions, gun rights (you know my position on guns I think, but gun rights supporters feel under attack from the left).
Again, IтАЩm trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical. And suggesting that they are will do nothing but alienate them.
"IтАЩm trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical."
Sadly, the internet often makes that hard to believe. I do try to keep that thought to myself most of the time. Also sadly, more as a matter of politeness than the thought that I'll hear something that is not disingenuous or ridiculous (to my mind).
Quoting George Orwell, "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
I'm in awe that the internet hasn't beaten your good faith in people with different viewpoints out of you.
I don't think this example qualifies as honest disagreement. Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world. That doesn't mean that the ~5% that is of what some call "the left" is excusable but the authorities are clear that 95% of political violence comes from the right, who are, as we speak, threatening widespread violence if Trump is indicted for his "homework."
You've never seen me go in for identity politics, not even on gay issues where I actually do have a dog in the fight. Maybe it's just that I can't bring myself to see identity politics as political, rather an individual suckling grasp for attention, There is nothing in the politics of the authentic left that has any foundation for the demands of the they-people.
I think there some right wing positions that are simply inadmissible in honest discussion, for example, "the vaccines are the cause of COVID" or "Trump won." The big social networks won't even tolerate the former.
"Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world."
Agreed. But nobody said this. You accused somebody of saying this when they hadn't.
I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics.
You can listen to pretty much any speech by Joe Biden (or almost any high-ranking Democrat) to hear the degree to which identity politics has infiltrated the left. Consider how Biden pre-announced that he was going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Or how he wanted COVID relief to "especially" benefit business owners of colour, or his proudly announced all-female press team. On and on.
Productive conversation is impossible if you refuse to recognise this. Just as productive conversation is impossible with people who claim Trump won the election.
That is one of the reasons that I no longer call myself a liberal even though I am more liberal in the classical sense than the modern political leftist which is essentially neo-Marxist with its class warfare theme.
My views on g╠╢u╠╢n╠╢ people control often brings out the word "Trump" in response. B!+&# please! So, I can understand how an actual liberal would resent the association with the shall I permit myself to say it, absurdities of far "left" (sorry).
I am curious why you would repudiate the idea of "class warfare," I would say that class warfare has never been more out in the open. It's one of those things like "envy" that people bring up to justify the inability of the ridiculously wealthy to embrace the notion of "enough."
I reject a lot of the absurdities of what is now called "the left" and I lose sleep worrying that the Democrats are going to make pronouns and bathrooms the foundation of their policy proposals.
Edit: Amazon just recommended "The Bell Curve to me. Just now. Is that what I get for recommending The Mismeasure of Man to you? ┬бWai! The perversity of the universe.
It's not that I don't understand the disdain for the obscenely wealthy. At one time I was the poor white trash living in a trailer park at the edge of the poor side of town. My concern is its purpose and goal.
Without regard to perceived justification for it, its purpose, both in its original state and now is the destruction of the existing system and replacement with another which may or may not prove to be improvement. Not incremental improvement, destruction and replacement.
"I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics."
OK this part gave me pause, I think you have a real point here but please allow me some quibble.
I have actually studied leftist politics; I hung out at Red and Black Books in my 20s, I've read Marx (Karl, not Groucho), I live in a Communist country. My definition isn't so nebulous as to make it synonymous with "the Democratic Party" (I bet even AOC believes in free markets) or "anyone the right hates." I would say that the right is every bit as steeped in IP albeit with different identities (their own, not minorities real and imagined).
If you don't mind I would like to take this offline, I don't think others want to read it and I am uncomfortable engaging in self-defense. I'm at cheopys@gmail.com.
Hey Chris, my emails are already a nightmare of triage that I wouldn't want to add a conversation to. but you can DM me on Twitter. You can find me at @steevqj
тАЭaghast, maybe, but not at the level of "you fucking jerkтАЭ
ЁЯШВ Chris if you or anybody else wrote this to somebody here IтАЩd cancel their membership. This is not the bar IтАЩm aiming to clear.
This isnтАЩt most online forums. ThatтАЩs the point. Otherwise IтАЩd just invite people to chat on Twitter. Most online forums are toxic, combative places. And they rely on moderators to go around removing messages and closing conversations that got too nasty.
I have no intention of becoming a full time moderator. So IтАЩm expecting all of the mature adults here to moderate themselves. By which I just mean speaking to people with a basic level of politeness and generosity if spirit.
Again, if I thought you were simply incapable of this, that would be a different conversation. But I know you are. As I said, you do it with many of the commenters here, but not with others.
Different people receive and respond differently to blunt talk. Terms of endearment between Marines sounds like hate speech to many people.
Our initial exchanges were not sugar coated and we got past it and it seems that we ended up liking each other. Who we are played a big role in that.
It is sometimes necessary for me to mute to suppress my inner jarhead and maintain politeness. I think that Steve's desire to maintain an environment without an air of hostility is important to his purpose and I think that you respect that. You just have a different idea about where politeness ends. Don't get booted, I like you here. Your words are often thought provoking, and this is a good place for you to be.
Other times I got admonished I had some distant notion I might have gone over the line. Not this time. This admonishing is inhibiting to me now. I had no sense whatsoever that "where do you get this nonsense?" crossed any line and I still don't. It didn't feel hostile. If I respond with, "Oh, come on, man" is that going to get me booted?
My sister lived in Germany during the Bush Nightmare Years. Once she came back to the USA to visit and we met for dinner. The topic of language came up and I switched into German, which I speak fluently thanks to four years with the best teacher of German in the USA. Her jaw dropped. She stared at me and finally got out, Fuck you! She's living there and struggling with the language and I spoke it like I grew up there. She'd forgotten about that.
I could have taken "fuck you!" as a grievous insult and walked away hurt and aggrieved. I'm betting you Marine jocularity is in something like the same spirit. I can refrain from hostility and I think, given how angry I have been most of my life. I'm doing a pretty good job on here.
But this was completely unexpected and I now feel completely adrift in where the proprieties lie. I'm not going to respond to liars with gentility and I'm never ever ever going in for "all viewpoints are worthy of respect."
тАЬI'm never ever ever going in for "all viewpoints are worthy of respect."тАЭ
Hi Chris, I donтАЩt want you to feel confused about where the line is. IтАЩm certainly not going to ban you for a comment like this.
I called it out because comments like these almost inevitably lead to antagonism further down the chain. There have been a few conversations youтАЩve been involved in that have become quite negative, and itтАЩs often very clear how a little bit of rudeness turned into a little bit more in the next reply from them and so on.
Even a conversation that ends with you calling somebody a troll or insulting their intelligence is likely to stick in that personтАЩs mind the next time they interact with you. So new conversations are immediately more antagonistic than they otherwise would have been.
Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. I agree. But all people are worthy of respect. At least until they demonstrate that they arenтАЩt.
Nobody here has demonstrated anything if the sort. As IтАЩve said many times, IтАЩm extremely happy with the mix of people here and the general thoughtfulness of the comments. So if you disagree with somebody, which is inevitable and not a problem at all, consider the possibility that youтАЩre the one who is missing something, and approach the conversation with some humility. ThatтАЩs all IтАЩm asking.
Steve. The guy said, "thank you for admitting you're wrong" or something to that effect. I had done no such thing; the intention was to make me sputter that "I didn't admit any such thing!!" and keep me chasing my tail for as long as he could. What he did was pure trollery, nothing to do with viewpoint, but dishonest and intended to elicit outrage. Decades ago I might have kept it up and it took me four years on FC and living in a state of elevated anger to get over it and quit.
OK, conceded, I should have just left his shit on the floor where shat but I thought that one-word response was pretty mild.
In my mind his bait met any criterion of "demonstrating that they aren't" (worthy of respect.).
Sometime you might want to google the iconic Honda Cannon debate on NetSlaves, which was mostly between me and the troll who chased me around for four years, even bribing a sysadmin to let him troll a forum where it was forbidden.
Here we have a conversation where you've made totally unfounded assumptions about Marla because she mentions Antifa, she responds to a great deal of sarcasm from you with politeness. You then claim Antifa simply don't exist (a claim I'm still not sure how you stand behind. I can only imagine how you'd react to somebody who claimed QAnon don't exist), then Jason offers you some (admittedly pretty lukewarm) evidence, you respond with more sarcasm, and then finally, he responds with some in return.
This is the knock on effect I'm talking about. One bit of rudeness or sarcasm makes the next bit more likely, and so on. Especially when talking to strangers on the nameless, faceless internet. I'm not even saying he wasn't trolling. And yes, your response was mild enough in the grand scheme of things.
I'm saying you seem to be overlooking your significant part in the conversation reaching that point. And in making further conversation, where you might have at least partially come to an understanding, all but impossible. If Marla had responded to you with sarcasm or trolling, I wouldn't have blamed her either.
As I said earlier, the way you speak to people impacts the way they speak to you. Your willingness to hear them out or to ask productive questions impacts their willingness to do the same in return. This impact can be positive or negative. I'm aiming for it to be consistently positive from everybody here.
The leaders of the "left" and "right" give us emotional 3rd rail confrontations to have us at each other's throats so that we won't come for them with torches and pitchforks. The issues can be real, so their tactic works quite well.
I used the scare quotes for a reason. The one name describes many is a bit like the one score (IQ) describe people in totality. Depending upon the issue there are things that I agree with on both "sides" and members of both "sides" who would not have me if I wished to claim an association. I don't.
my exhibit #A "Flowery words in documents centuries old mean little in a world where truth itself has lost value" If they have lost value it is because people like you do not value them.
I have too many things to do right now to write more
Not sure what you mean by "they" in "if they have lost value"; I said truth has lost value, and that would be singular. I am going to presume that you're referring to the Constitution and the DoI.
The DoI was a statement ending the country's role as a colony of England and I am not sure why you brought it up at all.
The Constitution comes from a world so unlike the present that it might as well be from some eastern European medieval dukedom. It comes from a time as close to the Middle Ages as to the present, written by slaveholders in a world without nuclear weapons, satellite surveillance, electronic communication, television, machine guns, or automobiles,; a world where greenhouse gases were still at ancient levels and most of the country was forested.
So why do you regard it as so authoritative for our present?
It was so flawed that it was immediately amended with ten overlooked principles, including some like the Third Amendment that are cartoonishly irrelevant in 2022.
The Constitution is ... quaint. Yes we still abide by its basic prescriptions for the separation of powers and a few other broad principles.
But.
We live in a time when about 40% of adult citizens would likely fail a psychiatric exam, where the vital principles in the BoR are largely overlooked and ignored. From my perspective these documents serve more as impediments than as guidance. In case you're not keeping up with current events, a Supreme Court populated with religious nutters just ruled that we cannot regulate the power plant emissions that are going to soon render most of the world uninhabitable and put the land inhabited by half the world's population underwater.
In a country with more guns than people and with near daily mass shootings, we can't do anything about the Second Amendment which was rendered obsolete in 1903, if not in 1865.
I believe in the principles the country was founded on and care about them a lot more than some mawkishly revered bit of parchment. I used to be a believer; in grade school I stood on the spot where Patrick Henry delivered his famous speech and recited it passionately from memory.
Democracy is dying in America, the world is dying, and we can't respond because of the Constitution.
In American culture the individual is eternally at war with community and inextricably intertwined with selfishness. The two are out of balance.
Yet paradoxically individualism has become as intertwined with tribal membership; each passing decade defines the self more as part of as selected tribe. Race is but one of these.
These intertwinings are corruptions.
The declaration of independence and the Preamble to the Constitution made clear that each individual has inalienable rights and that cooperation via the government is the mechanism to realize Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. The fact that many people trash individual rights in favor of group rights does not alter the Declaration or the Preamble. Nor, does the fact that many people believe that no cooperation with others required for there to be an context for individual rights to exist negate the need to cooperate. We have reached the point where the Left is at war with individual rights and the Right is at war with cooperation. That polarization is a formula for national destruction, but neither the Left nor the Right gives a damn about that -- the only thing either the other extreme wants is to vanguish the other
"the Left is at war with individual rights"
Where do you get this nonsense?
Flowery words in documents centuries old mean little in a world where truth itself has lost value. These documents are interpreted however people want and bad people take the greater liberties.
How is "the left" at war with individual rights? Is it they seeking to ban books or are you talking about private ownership of military weapons?
I am a communitarian. I adhere to neither ideology but see the right of citizens to lead reasonably stable and predictable lives as more important than stirring phrases from times as close to the middle ages as to the present day.
The coin whose obverse is freedom has responsibility as its reverse. We love to prattle about the one and are enraged at the other.
"Where do you get this nonsense?"
This is not helpful. Alternatives include:
Why do you think this? What are you basing this on? I disagree. Literally anything that isn't needlessly antagonistic. I'm getting tired of tone-policing you Chris. I'm sure you're getting tired of me doing it too.
I know you can manage polite discourse, even when you disagree. You manage it with me and Dave and a few others here on a regular basis. The tone and atmosphere here is extremely important to the overall quality of conversation. Please, *please* bear that in mind as you comment. You can't say I haven't asked you numerous times.
Yeah you've admonished me and yeah I've listened but this one I don't understand. Sorry but to my mind "where do you get this nonsense?" is just not that offensive, to me it isn't offensive at all. If someone wrote that to me it would elicit no reaction. Doesn't sound antagonistic to me; aghast, maybe, but not at the level of "you fucking jerk" as we see in most online forums. It isn't even "where do you get this bullshit?" Sorry, but I am just not tracking this time.
Because it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible position; if anyone is trying to destroy freedoms it isn't any imaginary Teh Left, it's the book-banners.
I concede I get kind of pissed at the whole bothsides thing. I disown those SJWs that the other side calls Left.
OK, I'll dial it down even further, or maybe I'll do as I already do most of the time and just stop the conversation at that point.
тАЬBecause it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible positionтАЭ
ThatтАЩs just it, IтАЩd like to have heard what Rick had to say in defence of this position. Instead, he was pretty clearly offended and checked out.
But I donтАЩt think the position is indefensible. A little hyperbolic, as most of us are guilty of on the internet from time to time, but if I had to guess, IтАЩd say he was referring to the leftтАЩs penchant for identity politics and big government.
Also things like the more onerous COVID policy decisions, gun rights (you know my position on guns I think, but gun rights supporters feel under attack from the left).
Again, IтАЩm trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical. And suggesting that they are will do nothing but alienate them.
"IтАЩm trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical."
Sadly, the internet often makes that hard to believe. I do try to keep that thought to myself most of the time. Also sadly, more as a matter of politeness than the thought that I'll hear something that is not disingenuous or ridiculous (to my mind).
Quoting George Orwell, "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
I'm in awe that the internet hasn't beaten your good faith in people with different viewpoints out of you.
I don't think this example qualifies as honest disagreement. Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world. That doesn't mean that the ~5% that is of what some call "the left" is excusable but the authorities are clear that 95% of political violence comes from the right, who are, as we speak, threatening widespread violence if Trump is indicted for his "homework."
You've never seen me go in for identity politics, not even on gay issues where I actually do have a dog in the fight. Maybe it's just that I can't bring myself to see identity politics as political, rather an individual suckling grasp for attention, There is nothing in the politics of the authentic left that has any foundation for the demands of the they-people.
I think there some right wing positions that are simply inadmissible in honest discussion, for example, "the vaccines are the cause of COVID" or "Trump won." The big social networks won't even tolerate the former.
"Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world."
Agreed. But nobody said this. You accused somebody of saying this when they hadn't.
I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics.
You can listen to pretty much any speech by Joe Biden (or almost any high-ranking Democrat) to hear the degree to which identity politics has infiltrated the left. Consider how Biden pre-announced that he was going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Or how he wanted COVID relief to "especially" benefit business owners of colour, or his proudly announced all-female press team. On and on.
Productive conversation is impossible if you refuse to recognise this. Just as productive conversation is impossible with people who claim Trump won the election.
That is one of the reasons that I no longer call myself a liberal even though I am more liberal in the classical sense than the modern political leftist which is essentially neo-Marxist with its class warfare theme.
My views on g╠╢u╠╢n╠╢ people control often brings out the word "Trump" in response. B!+&# please! So, I can understand how an actual liberal would resent the association with the shall I permit myself to say it, absurdities of far "left" (sorry).
I am curious why you would repudiate the idea of "class warfare," I would say that class warfare has never been more out in the open. It's one of those things like "envy" that people bring up to justify the inability of the ridiculously wealthy to embrace the notion of "enough."
I reject a lot of the absurdities of what is now called "the left" and I lose sleep worrying that the Democrats are going to make pronouns and bathrooms the foundation of their policy proposals.
Edit: Amazon just recommended "The Bell Curve to me. Just now. Is that what I get for recommending The Mismeasure of Man to you? ┬бWai! The perversity of the universe.
It's not that I don't understand the disdain for the obscenely wealthy. At one time I was the poor white trash living in a trailer park at the edge of the poor side of town. My concern is its purpose and goal.
Without regard to perceived justification for it, its purpose, both in its original state and now is the destruction of the existing system and replacement with another which may or may not prove to be improvement. Not incremental improvement, destruction and replacement.
https://youtu.be/BGLGzRXY5Bw
"I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics."
OK this part gave me pause, I think you have a real point here but please allow me some quibble.
I have actually studied leftist politics; I hung out at Red and Black Books in my 20s, I've read Marx (Karl, not Groucho), I live in a Communist country. My definition isn't so nebulous as to make it synonymous with "the Democratic Party" (I bet even AOC believes in free markets) or "anyone the right hates." I would say that the right is every bit as steeped in IP albeit with different identities (their own, not minorities real and imagined).
If you don't mind I would like to take this offline, I don't think others want to read it and I am uncomfortable engaging in self-defense. I'm at cheopys@gmail.com.
Hey Chris, my emails are already a nightmare of triage that I wouldn't want to add a conversation to. but you can DM me on Twitter. You can find me at @steevqj
тАЭaghast, maybe, but not at the level of "you fucking jerkтАЭ
ЁЯШВ Chris if you or anybody else wrote this to somebody here IтАЩd cancel their membership. This is not the bar IтАЩm aiming to clear.
This isnтАЩt most online forums. ThatтАЩs the point. Otherwise IтАЩd just invite people to chat on Twitter. Most online forums are toxic, combative places. And they rely on moderators to go around removing messages and closing conversations that got too nasty.
I have no intention of becoming a full time moderator. So IтАЩm expecting all of the mature adults here to moderate themselves. By which I just mean speaking to people with a basic level of politeness and generosity if spirit.
Again, if I thought you were simply incapable of this, that would be a different conversation. But I know you are. As I said, you do it with many of the commenters here, but not with others.
Different people receive and respond differently to blunt talk. Terms of endearment between Marines sounds like hate speech to many people.
Our initial exchanges were not sugar coated and we got past it and it seems that we ended up liking each other. Who we are played a big role in that.
It is sometimes necessary for me to mute to suppress my inner jarhead and maintain politeness. I think that Steve's desire to maintain an environment without an air of hostility is important to his purpose and I think that you respect that. You just have a different idea about where politeness ends. Don't get booted, I like you here. Your words are often thought provoking, and this is a good place for you to be.
Thanks, Dave.
Other times I got admonished I had some distant notion I might have gone over the line. Not this time. This admonishing is inhibiting to me now. I had no sense whatsoever that "where do you get this nonsense?" crossed any line and I still don't. It didn't feel hostile. If I respond with, "Oh, come on, man" is that going to get me booted?
My sister lived in Germany during the Bush Nightmare Years. Once she came back to the USA to visit and we met for dinner. The topic of language came up and I switched into German, which I speak fluently thanks to four years with the best teacher of German in the USA. Her jaw dropped. She stared at me and finally got out, Fuck you! She's living there and struggling with the language and I spoke it like I grew up there. She'd forgotten about that.
I could have taken "fuck you!" as a grievous insult and walked away hurt and aggrieved. I'm betting you Marine jocularity is in something like the same spirit. I can refrain from hostility and I think, given how angry I have been most of my life. I'm doing a pretty good job on here.
But this was completely unexpected and I now feel completely adrift in where the proprieties lie. I'm not going to respond to liars with gentility and I'm never ever ever going in for "all viewpoints are worthy of respect."
тАЬI'm never ever ever going in for "all viewpoints are worthy of respect."тАЭ
Hi Chris, I donтАЩt want you to feel confused about where the line is. IтАЩm certainly not going to ban you for a comment like this.
I called it out because comments like these almost inevitably lead to antagonism further down the chain. There have been a few conversations youтАЩve been involved in that have become quite negative, and itтАЩs often very clear how a little bit of rudeness turned into a little bit more in the next reply from them and so on.
Even a conversation that ends with you calling somebody a troll or insulting their intelligence is likely to stick in that personтАЩs mind the next time they interact with you. So new conversations are immediately more antagonistic than they otherwise would have been.
Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. I agree. But all people are worthy of respect. At least until they demonstrate that they arenтАЩt.
Nobody here has demonstrated anything if the sort. As IтАЩve said many times, IтАЩm extremely happy with the mix of people here and the general thoughtfulness of the comments. So if you disagree with somebody, which is inevitable and not a problem at all, consider the possibility that youтАЩre the one who is missing something, and approach the conversation with some humility. ThatтАЩs all IтАЩm asking.
Steve. The guy said, "thank you for admitting you're wrong" or something to that effect. I had done no such thing; the intention was to make me sputter that "I didn't admit any such thing!!" and keep me chasing my tail for as long as he could. What he did was pure trollery, nothing to do with viewpoint, but dishonest and intended to elicit outrage. Decades ago I might have kept it up and it took me four years on FC and living in a state of elevated anger to get over it and quit.
OK, conceded, I should have just left his shit on the floor where shat but I thought that one-word response was pretty mild.
In my mind his bait met any criterion of "demonstrating that they aren't" (worthy of respect.).
Sometime you might want to google the iconic Honda Cannon debate on NetSlaves, which was mostly between me and the troll who chased me around for four years, even bribing a sysadmin to let him troll a forum where it was forbidden.
"I had done no such thing; the intention was to make me sputter that "I didn't admit any such thing!!""
Yes, agreed. This is actually a fairly good example of what I'm talking about. Here's the conversation to refresh your memory (https://steveqj.substack.com/p/your-comments-are-fairly-shocking/comment/8101625).
Here we have a conversation where you've made totally unfounded assumptions about Marla because she mentions Antifa, she responds to a great deal of sarcasm from you with politeness. You then claim Antifa simply don't exist (a claim I'm still not sure how you stand behind. I can only imagine how you'd react to somebody who claimed QAnon don't exist), then Jason offers you some (admittedly pretty lukewarm) evidence, you respond with more sarcasm, and then finally, he responds with some in return.
This is the knock on effect I'm talking about. One bit of rudeness or sarcasm makes the next bit more likely, and so on. Especially when talking to strangers on the nameless, faceless internet. I'm not even saying he wasn't trolling. And yes, your response was mild enough in the grand scheme of things.
I'm saying you seem to be overlooking your significant part in the conversation reaching that point. And in making further conversation, where you might have at least partially come to an understanding, all but impossible. If Marla had responded to you with sarcasm or trolling, I wouldn't have blamed her either.
As I said earlier, the way you speak to people impacts the way they speak to you. Your willingness to hear them out or to ask productive questions impacts their willingness to do the same in return. This impact can be positive or negative. I'm aiming for it to be consistently positive from everybody here.
The leaders of the "left" and "right" give us emotional 3rd rail confrontations to have us at each other's throats so that we won't come for them with torches and pitchforks. The issues can be real, so their tactic works quite well.
I don't think of the "woke" as left, I think of them as fools.
The true American left disappeared in 1939. But prepend "relatively" before "left" and we are in full agreement.
I used the scare quotes for a reason. The one name describes many is a bit like the one score (IQ) describe people in totality. Depending upon the issue there are things that I agree with on both "sides" and members of both "sides" who would not have me if I wished to claim an association. I don't.
Got it. Sorry to be so thick.
BTW I'm pretty sure they're called sneer quotes.
Sneer quotes. I like that better.
my exhibit #A "Flowery words in documents centuries old mean little in a world where truth itself has lost value" If they have lost value it is because people like you do not value them.
I have too many things to do right now to write more
Not sure what you mean by "they" in "if they have lost value"; I said truth has lost value, and that would be singular. I am going to presume that you're referring to the Constitution and the DoI.
The DoI was a statement ending the country's role as a colony of England and I am not sure why you brought it up at all.
The Constitution comes from a world so unlike the present that it might as well be from some eastern European medieval dukedom. It comes from a time as close to the Middle Ages as to the present, written by slaveholders in a world without nuclear weapons, satellite surveillance, electronic communication, television, machine guns, or automobiles,; a world where greenhouse gases were still at ancient levels and most of the country was forested.
So why do you regard it as so authoritative for our present?
It was so flawed that it was immediately amended with ten overlooked principles, including some like the Third Amendment that are cartoonishly irrelevant in 2022.
The Constitution is ... quaint. Yes we still abide by its basic prescriptions for the separation of powers and a few other broad principles.
But.
We live in a time when about 40% of adult citizens would likely fail a psychiatric exam, where the vital principles in the BoR are largely overlooked and ignored. From my perspective these documents serve more as impediments than as guidance. In case you're not keeping up with current events, a Supreme Court populated with religious nutters just ruled that we cannot regulate the power plant emissions that are going to soon render most of the world uninhabitable and put the land inhabited by half the world's population underwater.
In a country with more guns than people and with near daily mass shootings, we can't do anything about the Second Amendment which was rendered obsolete in 1903, if not in 1865.
I believe in the principles the country was founded on and care about them a lot more than some mawkishly revered bit of parchment. I used to be a believer; in grade school I stood on the spot where Patrick Henry delivered his famous speech and recited it passionately from memory.
Democracy is dying in America, the world is dying, and we can't respond because of the Constitution.
It's not I who spoke 30,000 lies to the American public in four years.
Call me whatever you like but I value principles and kindness over anthems, flags, and old parchment.
This seems like a non sequitur