Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[hollodero]

(03-29-2024, 05:52 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL ok. At least we are clear about the differences.  I would put it this way: I'm more concerned about constant false equivalence.

How that gets "heard." That has to be contested more front and center in public debates, from my view.

So yes, in terms of these forum debates, I'm not interested in leveraging "who's worse" on some score card. 
I'm concerned about the real consequences of misinformation, anti-democratic policies, and the like.

I disagree with the whole notion that it is about ranking levels of concernedness. I mean, honestly I can't really get into all of it, I just did not expect that me talking about Democrats would lead to you bringing up slavery and make me google Ragnary rolls. But sure, I am also concerned about false equivalencies. There's just the problem that they exist anyway and concealing certain truths for fear of them, once outspoken, getting misused in right-wing rhetorics imho is an odd choice. If any, it just adds dishonesty and blind loyalty to the list people can draw false equivalencies from.

And I can just say that this has nothing to do with history professors saying "blacks had slaves too", it's not about justifying or minimizing or relativizing Trump. Yeah he's the clear and present danger to democracy itself, I see it the same way, but that's all I can commit to. Your special bipolar politics sure make it apparent that this stance means supporting Democrats, no way around that. But also going along with this whole oversimplified mythology of Democrats fighting the good fight against Trump, hero against villain, that seems ill-advised to me. It gives me certain Bush vibes when he introduced the world to the logic of you're either with us or the terrorists, meaning you'd better be fine with everything we do and critizising us is akin to supporting the evil side. Which did not sit all that well with the world. Now here terrorists are Trump and the Bush admin are the democrats, just to make my example clear, but to me it's the same kind of underlying dogmatism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2024, 07:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: I disagree with the whole notion that it is about ranking levels of concernedness. I mean, honestly I can't really get into all of it, I just did not expect that me talking about Democrats would lead to you bringing up slavery and make me google Ragnary rolls. But sure, I am also concerned about false equivalencies. There's just the problem that they exist anyway and concealing certain truths for fear of them, once outspoken, getting misused in right-wing rhetorics imho is an odd choice. If any, it just adds dishonesty and blind loyalty to the list people can draw false equivalencies from.

And I can just say that this has nothing to do with history professors saying "blacks had slaves too", it's not about justifying or minimizing or relativizing Trump. Yeah he's the clear and present danger to democracy itself, I see it the same way, but that's all I can commit to. Your special bipolar politics sure make it apparent that this stance means supporting Democrats, no way around that. But also going along with this whole oversimplified mythology of Democrats fighting the good fight against Trump, hero against villain, that seems ill-advised to me. It gives me certain Bush vibes when he introduced the world to the logic of you're either with us or the terrorists, meaning you'd better be fine with everything we do and critizising us is akin to supporting the evil side. Which did not sit all that well with the world. Now here terrorists are Trump and the Bush admin are the democrats, just to make my example clear, but to me it's the same kind of underlying dogmatism.

The W Bush comparison is dead on accurate.  I loathed it, and him, then and it's a very apt comparison.  Trying to make this a black vs. white conflict and discounting any notion of possible shades of grey merely makes the person arguing that look both intentionally disingenuous and a dogmatic adherent.

[hollodero]

(03-29-2024, 07:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I guess we'll find out when they lie, engage in hypocrisy or racism, or support Hamas.  I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I feel I have to interject that I find these accusations to be hyperbolic. Eg. you can't quite convince me that Dill engages in racism. That is a very loaded thing to say, one widely disliked if left leaning folks use it when someone does not share their perspective. And I also don't believe he is a Hamas supporter, and it makes me wonder. You were - of course without merit - called a Trump supporter time and again. And after you make clear that you are not that you're rightfully annoyed when people proceed by claiming 'Oh you say you're not, but it's a ridiculous lie. Here, let me expose you'. And yet you do pretty much the same thing here to Dill. It seems to me as if what was discussed about dogmatism and neglecting grey areas applies for these instances as well.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-30-2024, 08:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I feel I have to interject that I find these accusations to be hyperbolic. Eg. you can't quite convince me that Dill engages in racism. That is a very loaded thing to say, one widely disliked if left leaning folks use it when someone does not share their perspective. And I also don't believe he is a Hamas supporter, and it makes me wonder. You were - of course without merit - called a Trump supporter time and again. And after you make clear that you are not that you're rightfully annoyed when people proceed by claiming 'Oh you say you're not, but it's a ridiculous lie. Here, let me expose you'. And yet you do pretty much the same thing here to Dill. It seems to me as if what was discussed about dogmatism and neglecting grey areas applies for these instances as well.

SSF is in my opinion the furthest thing from a Trump supporter.  Now Dill, with him being a college professor of philosophy or some such, is a bit over the top in his partisan rhetoric.  His posts regarding Trump are "over the top" for someone supposedly in a position of leading and teaching a new generation. If anything, a person of his station should maintain a position (at least outwardly) of neutrality, and only focus on the bigger picture. 

The truth of the matter is that in our Nation, both parties are losing supporters at a fast clip. If ever there was a time for a 3rd party to make a significant impact on an election, this would be the year. The Democaratic Party has went to great lengths to denounce and defame the "no labels party", in my opinion because several of the supporters of NLP are people who chose to leave the current Democaratic Party as their ideals simply don't align with mainstream America any longer. If you ask me, a candidate like Joe Machin with a running mate like Tulsi Gabbard could actually gain enough votes from both sides to make a significant impact in the upcoming election. But, it likely won't happen.

[hollodero]

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: SSF is in my opinion the furthest thing from a Trump supporter.

Oh, sure. Only thing in common is a quite intense dislike of the Democrats.

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Now Dill, with him being a college professor of philosophy or some such, is a bit over the top in his partisan rhetoric.  His posts regarding Trump are "over the top" for someone supposedly in a position of leading and teaching a new generation. If anything, a person of his station should maintain a position (at least outwardly) of neutrality, and only focus on the bigger picture. 

Can't say I agree with that stance. I don't think a teaching profession means one should not harbor political preferences or has to stay neutral on a political message board. As for the bigger picture, I guess he sees the danger he and I perceive Trump to be as the bigger picture.

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The truth of the matter is that in our Nation, both parties are losing supporters at a fast clip. If ever there was a time for a 3rd party to make a significant impact on an election, this would be the year. The Democaratic Party has went to great lengths to denounce and defame the "no labels party", in my opinion because several of the supporters of NLP are people who chose to leave the current Democaratic Party as their ideals simply don't align with mainstream America any longer. If you ask me, a candidate like Joe Machin with a running mate like Tulsi Gabbard could actually gain enough votes from both sides to make a significant impact in the upcoming election. But, it likely won't happen.

Sounds legit in theory, but as long as your voting system of one candidate per voting district, winner takes it all remains the same, and your campaign finance laws stay the same, this seems utopic to me. How could a Manchin or a Manchin party ever compete with the money and media powerhouses both parties erected around themselves. They'd crush him financially and in the mass media outlets, he'd get accused of helping the worse guy win, his party have no real chance to gain a single seat in Congress even if 20% of people supported him. Imho it's pointless and he knows that full well.

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The truth of the matter is that in our Nation, both parties are losing supporters at a fast clip. If ever there was a time for a 3rd party to make a significant impact on an election, this would be the year. The Democaratic Party has went to great lengths to denounce and defame the "no labels party", in my opinion because several of the supporters of NLP are people who chose to leave the current Democaratic Party as their ideals simply don't align with mainstream America any longer. If you ask me, a candidate like Joe Machin with a running mate like Tulsi Gabbard could actually gain enough votes from both sides to make a significant impact in the upcoming election. But, it likely won't happen.

In our current electoral system, a third-party or independent cannot win. The only chance they have is as a spoiler candidate when it comes to the presidential election, especially. The DNC knows that NLP would pull more from them than Trump resulting in a Trump win. This is why Chris Christie turned down the offer; his team came to the same conclusion. There is no chance that their candidate could pull off enough to win the race. Trump and the GOP knows that third-party types will have this impact as well, it's why Trump's largest donor is the one who has been funding RFK Jr.'s campaign as well. He is a chaos agent intended to split Biden's vote just enough to give Trump the win. It's a real shady move.

[*pally*]

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: SSF is in my opinion the furthest thing from a Trump supporter.  Now Dill, with him being a college professor of philosophy or some such, is a bit over the top in his partisan rhetoric.  His posts regarding Trump are "over the top" for someone supposedly in a position of leading and teaching a new generation. If anything, a person of his station should maintain a position (at least outwardly) of neutrality, and only focus on the bigger picture. 

The truth of the matter is that in our Nation, both parties are losing supporters at a fast clip. If ever there was a time for a 3rd party to make a significant impact on an election, this would be the year. The Democaratic Party has went to great lengths to denounce and defame the "no labels party", in my opinion because several of the supporters of NLP are people who chose to leave the current Democaratic Party as their ideals simply don't align with mainstream America any longer. If you ask me, a candidate like Joe Machin with a running mate like Tulsi Gabbard could actually gain enough votes from both sides to make a significant impact in the upcoming election. But, it likely won't happen.

SSF may not be a Trump supporter but his expressed opinions don't exactly distance him from the political beliefs of Trump's party.

So college professors are not allowed to anonymously express personal political opinions on a non-political forum.. why?  How can a professor teach his students to "focus on the bigger picture, if he isn't allowed to talk about the details that affect the overall picture?

SSF is a police officer who works with the public, with often vastly different political opinions than his own, if you are concerned that Dill can't control himself in the classroom, why aren't you equally concerned with this public official whose opinions can influence how he deals with people in his job.

And don't get me wrong I am not questioning either man's ability to keep personal opinions out of their job performance. I, however, am questioning why you believe a college professor isn't allowed to have personal opinions and anonymously express them.  But still, aren't college students adults who are supposed to be utilizing critical thinking skills?  They aren't children who need to be protected from the opinions of anyone including their professors.

I'd love to see a 3rd political party but, to me, it seems that so many of these start-up parties and independents running are starting from the wrong end.  They all want the Presidency.  They should work at the grassroots level and build up wins for state houses and Congress first.  Show Americans what they believe in and how they would govern.  As it is right now, they lose the presidency in one election cycle and they then disappear before the next.  It makes these parties' founders look like they aren't interested in long-term governing but are aiming for short-term power.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2024, 08:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I feel I have to interject that I find these accusations to be hyperbolic. Eg. you can't quite convince me that Dill engages in racism. That is a very loaded thing to say, one widely disliked if left leaning folks use it when someone does not share their perspective. And I also don't believe he is a Hamas supporter, and it makes me wonder. You were - of course without merit - called a Trump supporter time and again. And after you make clear that you are not that you're rightfully annoyed when people proceed by claiming 'Oh you say you're not, but it's a ridiculous lie. Here, let me expose you'. And yet you do pretty much the same thing here to Dill. It seems to me as if what was discussed about dogmatism and neglecting grey areas applies for these instances as well.

I've explained this, in detail, in the past.  But I will do so again for the purposes of clarification.  Why do I think Dill supports Hamas?  Because he consistently excuses and mitigates their behavior.  He parrots their exact talking points on a frequent basis.  His posts are entirely on sided in attacking Israel.  He has flat out said that Israel should not exist in any way it has since it's reformation post WW2.  He blames Israel, and the West, for the action of Hamas (and other Islamic terrorists), instead of the actual actors.  Now, replace Hamas with the KKK, or neo-Nazis.  What would you call someone who did all those things for either of those groups?  I also don't think it's even a  remote stretch to label Hamas as bad, if not worse, than either of those groups.

I don't think GM is a Hamas supporter, I wouldn't apply that label to literally anyone else on this board.  But I apply it to him for solid, logical reasons.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-30-2024, 09:56 PM)pally Wrote: SSF may not be a Trump supporter but his expressed opinions don't exactly distance him from the political beliefs of Trump's party.

Some of them, to be sure.  Other's not at all.  I'm pro-choice, pro same sex marriage, have zero issues with transgender people in the military, think marijuana should be legal.  I could go on, and have stated all of this before.  About the only things I fully agree with the GOP on are the criminal justice system and gun ownership.  And gun ownership should be the most liberal position on the planet.  There is nothing more anti-authoritarian than private gun ownership.  

Quote:So college professors are not allowed to anonymously express personal political opinions on a non-political forum.. why?  How can a professor teach his students to "focus on the bigger picture, if he isn't allowed to talk about the details that affect the overall picture?

SSF is a police officer who works with the public, with often vastly different political opinions than his own, if you are concerned that Dill can't control himself in the classroom, why aren't you equally concerned with this public official whose opinions can influence how he deals with people in his job.

And don't get me wrong I am not questioning either man's ability to keep personal opinions out of their job performance. I, however, am questioning why you believe a college professor isn't allowed to have personal opinions and anonymously express them.  But still, aren't college students adults who are supposed to be utilizing critical thinking skills?  They aren't children who need to be protected from the opinions of anyone including their professors.

I'd love to see a 3rd political party but, to me, it seems that so many of these start-up parties and independents running are starting from the wrong end.  They all want the Presidency.  They should work at the grassroots level and build up wins for state houses and Congress first.  Show Americans what they believe in and how they would govern.  As it is right now, they lose the presidency in one election cycle and they then disappear before the next.  It makes these parties' founders look like they aren't interested in long-term governing but are aiming for short-term power.

I'd love a viable third party as well, it's why I voted for Ross Perot in the first election I could ever vote.  But we don't have one, and right now, having seen the massive damage the Dems are currently doing, and the fact they keep doubling down on their mistakes means they have more than deservedly earned my enmity.  The GOP makes me cringe on several issues.  I find MTG and other utter buffoons.  If the Dems could pull their head out of their ass and stop pandering to race grifting bigots then maybe we could have a reconciliation, but it would have to be coupled with a mea cupla and significant measures to amend for the horrible damage they have done.

[Dill]

(03-30-2024, 07:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: I disagree with the whole notion that it is about ranking levels of concernedness. I mean, honestly I can't really get into all of it, I just did not expect that me talking about Democrats would lead to you bringing up slavery and make me google Ragnary rolls. But sure, I am also concerned about false equivalencies. There's just the problem that they exist anyway and concealing certain truths for fear of them, once outspoken, getting misused in right-wing rhetorics imho is an odd choice. If any, it just adds dishonesty and blind loyalty to the list people can draw false equivalencies from.

And I can just say that this has nothing to do with history professors saying "blacks had slaves too", it's not about justifying or minimizing or relativizing Trump. Yeah he's the clear and present danger to democracy itself, I see it the same way, but that's all I can commit to. Your special bipolar politics sure make it apparent that this stance means supporting Democrats, no way around that. But also going along with this whole oversimplified mythology of Democrats fighting the good fight against Trump, hero against villain, that seems ill-advised to me. It gives me certain Bush vibes when he introduced the world to the logic of you're either with us or the terrorists, meaning you'd better be fine with everything we do and critizising us is akin to supporting the evil side. Which did not sit all that well with the world. Now here terrorists are Trump and the Bush admin are the democrats, just to make my example clear, but to me it's the same kind of underlying dogmatism.

Still don't think we're on the same page here.  I'm not a fan of "concealing truths" for fear etc. Wasn't advocating that, or dinging you for it.  I'm finding the/our misunderstanding useful for retooling, though. I'll not be offended if you are tired of the exchange and don't read the following. But working through a response helps me focus and improve the larger argument. This still doesn't nail it, but I'm getting closer.

I wasn't heroicizing Dems. So not ill-advised since that is not what is "advised."  I just don't see why criticism of Trump, without accompanying patter of how Biden and Dems suck too, should be cast as "imbalance" or an implicit "mythologizing" of Dems. Not sure how great my memory is about the Watergate era, but I don't recall people who criticized Nixon regularly adding that Dems, "of course," have their problems too, to avoid "concealing truths." Consider me curious about, and investigating, what has changed in our media environment to make kind of balance seem necessary.     

If Trump is a danger--and you agree he is--and justifying/minimizing/relativizing his behavior is a 24/7 requirement to maintain the danger (my claim; you haven't said you agree), then countering Trump-danger is about addressing that 24/7 justifying/minimizing/relativizing, whose primary tactic is "both sides do it," especially via false equivalence/whattaboutism. (Think of all the "independents" who, when asked to choose between someone who attempted to void democracy and someone who supports it, have trouble figuring out whether that is even the choice.) Making people more conscious of this pattern, of how it is systematic, is what creates my angle of critique and target here. There are other patterns too, like presenting Trump as victim and warring against Woke and DEI and immigrants. But the minimizing via equivalence is the primary support. Breaking that massively reduces effectiveness of all the rest. 

I reread both my recent posts to you and find nothing in either that I could construe as drawing lines between good Dems and bad Republicans and determining who is "with us."  I still see those posts emphasizing two basic goals, consistent with the aforementioned angle:

1. To describe an approach to historical and political issues which seizes them in pre-judgment, and reduces myriad contraries to either/or, often via stereotypes, absent any analytic intent or distance. People who LOVE America you don't write bad things about it. It is at odds with how professional/academic historians and social sciences approach/study social phenomena. That's why the history professors DON'T say "Blacks had slaves too!" every time they discuss U.S. slavery. But why DeSantis' Florida curriculum DOES need to say that Blacks benefited from slavery and killed whites too (and they'd find some Blacks owned slaves in the U.S. too, if they looked hard enough). I am using my description of that "Regnery" approach to explain a social pattern. And I've been pretty explicit in separating you from that. Fears that a disagreement with me could flip the forum's most concise and effective Trump critic into a Trump supporter are very premature.

2. A central aspect of the current politicized media environment is the cultural/political logic which pressures both Trump supporters and non-Trump supporting rightists to counter "leftist" critiques of Trump's behavior with oversimplified, deflating equivalences--Maddow=Hannity, Biden stole documents too, Dems have also denied elections, Dems are the "real" threat to electoral integrity (not the guy who employed his party to steal an election), "both sides" undermine rule of law, the liberal media is fake news too! etc. (On the "Trump Lawyer Disbarred" thread I was just asked if Dems were punished when THEY used a slate of "false" electors TOO.) It's not a problem of individuals; it's overlapping institutions, media and political, engaged in systematically generating propaganda, tailoring it to specific issues, and keeping it in circulation long after debunking, which renders democratic institutions dysfunctional and undermines competing sources of authority (Limbaugh's four corners of deceit). I've frequently argued the right wing media is structured differently from MSM, with much weaker vetting, politicized agenda setting, and re-circulation of debunked "truths." It's commentators construct elaborate, detailed alternative realities (Russia investigation =Witch Hunt"/ the Biden crime family) while grooming audiences to dismiss competing news sources. 

So to recap, you're not about "justifying or minimizing or relativizing Trump." But I'm talking about that because justifying or minimizing or relativizing Trump is what primarily keeps him in power. So it is a fair theme for discussion and a fair target for those of us who'd like to see Trumpism more effectively opposed.

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've explained this, in detail, in the past.  But I will do so again for the purposes of clarification.  Why do I think Dill supports Hamas?  Because he consistently excuses and mitigates their behavior.  He parrots their exact talking points on a frequent basis.  His posts are entirely on sided in attacking Israel.  He has flat out said that Israel should not exist in any way it has since it's reformation post WW2.  He blames Israel, and the West, for the action of Hamas (and other Islamic terrorists), instead of the actual actors.  Now, replace Hamas with the KKK, or neo-Nazis.  What would you call someone who did all those things for either of those groups?  I also don't think it's even a  remote stretch to label Hamas as bad, if not worse, than either of those groups.

I don't think GM is a Hamas supporter, I wouldn't apply that label to literally anyone else on this board.  But I apply it to him for solid, logical reasons.

When examined in light of my actual statements, though, these do not turn out to be "solid, logical reasons," but unsupported accusations. 
They are the very model of that reduction of issues to black and white with no grey area that you claim to be against, because they make one look
dogmatic, and just imputed to me.

E.g., you define "Hamas talking points," de facto, as commonly agreed on claims about international law and human rights violations, 
which I do indeed "parrot on a frequent basis."  Fine with me if you "replace Hamas with the KKK" on that score.

The upshot is that ANY legitimate acknowledgement of Israeli war crimes becomes eo ipso "supporting terrorism" and "mitigating Hamas."  

And when I ask you to get specific--e.g., show me an "anti-semitic" statement which isn't simply a criticism of human rights violations recognized by many respected Israeli historians and legitimate international bodies, I don't get "solid reasons"; I get crickets.

I recently reminded you that I have said Hamas must be destroyed in order for a two-state solution to become possible, and asked you if that 
constituted support for Hamas. First you answered a different question about two-date viability; then when I re-asked, silence. Still silence. Dodgery.

In engaging with you on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I've added to forum discussions rather a lot of information about the conflict which is mostly absent from the U.S. press and certainly from IDF statements. Especially about the illegal occupation. That's what triggers the "Dill=Hamas supporter" claims. That's what you reduce to "blaming the West and Israel." It's just an attempt to stop any backstory which DOESN'T reduce the conflict to black and white. Howz that make ME "dogmatic"? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-31-2024, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: When examined in light of my actual statements, though, these do not turn out to be "solid, logical reasons," but unsupported accusations. 
They are the very model of that reduction of issues to black and white with no grey area that you claim to be against, because they make one look
dogmatic, and just imputed to me.

E.g., you define "Hamas talking points," de facto, as commonly agreed on claims about international law and human rights violations, 
which I do indeed "parrot on a frequent basis."  Fine with me if you "replace Hamas with the KKK" on that score.

The upshot is that ANY legitimate acknowledgement of Israeli war crimes becomes eo ipso "supporting terrorism" and "mitigating Hamas."  

And when I ask you to get specific--e.g., show me an "anti-semitic" statement which isn't simply a criticism of human rights violations recognized by many respected Israeli historians and legitimate international bodies, I don't get "solid reasons"; I get crickets.

I recently reminded you that I have said Hamas must be destroyed in order for a two-state solution to become possible, and asked you if that 
constituted support for Hamas. First you answered a different question about two-date viability; then when I re-asked, silence. Still silence. Dodgery.

In engaging with you on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I've added to forum discussions rather a lot of information about the conflict which is mostly absent from the U.S. press and certainly from IDF statements. Especially about the illegal occupation. That's what triggers the "Dill=Hamas supporter" claims. That's what you reduce to "blaming the West and Israel." It's just an attempt to stop any backstory which DOESN'T reduce the conflict to black and white. Howz that make ME "dogmatic"? 

You literally stated Israel should not exist in any form it has taken since it's post WW2 reformation. Doesn't get much worse than that.  

[Dill]

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: SSF is in my opinion the furthest thing from a Trump supporter.  

In this forum, I am the "furthest thing from a Trump supporter." 

For the record, I have consistently separated Trump "supporters," like Luvnit, from Trump "defenders," like SSF, who regularly runs interference for criticism of Trump policy. SSF says he is pro-choice; Trump's SCOTUS picks give him a great chance to show that, but no, he thinks Trump's SCOTUS choices better protect our "freedoms." Howz that make him "furthest thing from a Trump supporter"?  Or his defense of Trump's Muslim ban? 

His primary target is "the modern left," a vague entity which he deems the greater threat, sending him after critics of Trump, to the cheers of many MAGA posters.
Sprinkling his posts with occasional reminders of how he thinks Trump an odious person doesn't establish "centrist" credentials for me. 

(03-30-2024, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Now Dill, with him being a college professor of philosophy or some such, is a bit over the top in his partisan rhetoric.  His posts regarding Trump are "over the top" for someone supposedly in a position of leading and teaching a new generation. If anything, a person of his station should maintain a position (at least outwardly) of neutrality, and only focus on the bigger picture. 

I don't believe I have ever claimed in this forum to be a professor of anything. Were a college professor of philosophy I wouldn't mention it here, as I don't make arguments based on claims of expertise or special authority. 

In any case, seems to me I do focus on the "the bigger picture" constantly--the nature of democracy and threats to it, here and abroad.  
Hence my frequent digressions on both history and the conditions/requirements for rational discourse, especially supporting claims with evidence and
valid inference.  "Pedantry" as SSF calls it. And remaining civil. No name-calling and personal attacks. 

I don't invoke such standards and then make exceptions for myself on any of these counts. I welcome opposing views and don't work to jam or restrict them on threads.

[hollodero]

(03-31-2024, 01:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've explained this, in detail, in the past.  But I will do so again for the purposes of clarification.  Why do I think Dill supports Hamas?  Because he consistently excuses and mitigates their behavior.  He parrots their exact talking points on a frequent basis.  His posts are entirely on sided in attacking Israel.

Well, note of course the following examples are not that similar. But someone could just say the same thing about you and Trump. I wouldn't, I know better and see no reason to provoce you in that manner, but I could find some flawed, but presentable arguments if I wanted to. Using your criteria, I could argue you attack almost exclusively one side, you find quite some fears and complaints about Trump to be overblown, and you say things that are also said on FOX. Case closed, Trump supporter.

While in reality of course, you do not parrot Trump or FOX, you just happen to have the same stance on some issues and are not so convinced of quite some develoments on the non-Trump side of things, and so on. Now admittedly, Hamas is a different cup of tea then Trump is. I don't need to replace them with KKK or neo-Nazi, they are no less despicable. But that does not mean that when they make a certain point, one has to immediately take the opposite stance. If your criteria on that is too harsh, you start running into the 2 + 2 problem, imho, as in you believe it is four, well, so did Hitler.

While, again, it is really not that black and white, of course putting the heineous attacks themselves aside, which warrant a distinct black without nuance. But when questioning how it could come to all that, how the spiral of violence keeps spinning, I don't find it an abdomination to believe Israel could have done better or shares some of the blame too. I, honestly, wouldn't dare to judge too harshly, but it's complicated enough and there's not really an easy truth to be had. And if one reaches his own conclusions and Hamas has a similar take on some of them, well, then it is just as it is. I for one would not dismiss my honest opinion just because someone I loathe shares it.

But hey, that is just my take on things. Dill once more stated how destroying Hamas is a necessity for a two-state solution to work, and that he is certainly not a Hamas supporter, and how comes that he says some things they also say. If you think he's just dishonest and the label is still fair, then there's nothing I need to add.

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You literally stated Israel should not exist in any form it has taken since it's post WW2 reformation. Doesn't get much worse than that.  

Hmm Looks like you are not going to answer for your "solid logic and reasons." Because they are neither solid, logic, nor reasons.

 I've stated I don't recognize the legitimacy of an ethnic state, created in violent dispossession of another people and now an occupying power
for that doesn't square with my recognition that Palestinians have equal human rights. (A Hamas talking point!)

You omitted my fuller statement, that I'd still recognize such an Israel as part of a two-state solution, ending the illegal occupation.

Trying to lever that into some black/white denunciation will work against your efforts to censor discussion of IDF war crimes, not to mention your
ongoing efforts to characterize me as a dogmatist who doesn't recognize shades of grey.  Rock and a hard place.

If you want to have that conversation, go back to the Superthread and answer the questions I posed there last week. 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-31-2024, 03:32 PM)Dill Wrote: In this forum, I am the "furthest thing from a Trump supporter." 

For the record, I have consistently separated Trump "supporters," like Luvnit, from Trump "defenders," like SSF, who regularly runs interference for criticism of Trump policy. SSF says he is pro-choice; Trump's SCOTUS picks give him a great chance to show that, but no, he thinks Trump's SCOTUS choices better protect our "freedoms." Howz that make him "furthest thing from a Trump supporter"?  Or his defense of Trump's Muslim ban? 

His primary target is "the modern left," a vague entity which he deems the greater threat, sending him after critics of Trump, to the cheers of many MAGA posters.
Sprinkling his posts with occasional reminders of how he thinks Trump an odious person doesn't establish "centrist" credentials for me. 


I don't believe I have ever claimed in this forum to be a professor of anything. Were a college professor of philosophy I wouldn't mention it here, as I don't make arguments based on claims of expertise or special authority. 

In any case, seems to me I do focus on the "the bigger picture" constantly--the nature of democracy and threats to it, here and abroad.  
Hence my frequent digressions on both history and the conditions/requirements for rational discourse, especially supporting claims with evidence and
valid inference.  "Pedantry" as SSF calls it. And remaining civil. No name-calling and personal attacks. 

I don't invoke such standards and then make exceptions for myself on any of these counts. I welcome opposing views and don't work to jam or restrict them on threads.

To first bolded, despite his numerous times of explaining that he's essentially Socially Left, and supports the Right on a few key issues, you don't like that he calls each side out on their ridiculousness? Am I to gather that from your point of view a person can only be Left or Right, no chance of centrism?

To second bolded, the way you operate in circular arguments really has me convinced that you focus more on the minutia than the bigger picture. (I apologize for the broad generalization, but I'm a big picture kinda guy)

[masonbengals fan]

(03-31-2024, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Some of them, to be sure.  Other's not at all.  I'm pro-choice, pro same sex marriage, have zero issues with transgender people in the military, think marijuana should be legal.  I could go on, and have stated all of this before.  About the only things I fully agree with the GOP on are the criminal justice system and gun ownership.  And gun ownership should be the most liberal position on the planet.  There is nothing more anti-authoritarian than private gun ownership.  


I'd love a viable third party as well, it's why I voted for Ross Perot in the first election I could ever vote.  But we don't have one, and right now, having seen the massive damage the Dems are currently doing, and the fact they keep doubling down on their mistakes means they have more than deservedly earned my enmity.  The GOP makes me cringe on several issues.  I find MTG and other utter buffoons.  If the Dems could pull their head out of their ass and stop pandering to race grifting bigots then maybe we could have a reconciliation, but it would have to be coupled with a mea cupla and significant measures to amend for the horrible damage they have done.

Solid post, which I mostly agree with. 

We need 3rd legitimate party so badly. I voted for Ross Perot. 

Sad state of affairs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-31-2024, 03:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, note of course the following examples are not that similar. But someone could just say the same thing about you and Trump. I wouldn't, I know better and see no reason to provoce you in that manner, but I could find some flawed, but presentable arguments if I wanted to. Using your criteria, I could argue you attack almost exclusively one side, you find quite some fears and complaints about Trump to be overblown, and you say things that are also said on FOX. Case closed, Trump supporter.

While in reality of course, you do not parrot Trump or FOX, you just happen to have the same stance on some issues and are not so convinced of quite some develoments on the non-Trump side of things, and so on. Now admittedly, Hamas is a different cup of tea then Trump is. I don't need to replace them with KKK or neo-Nazi, they are no less despicable. But that does not mean that when they make a certain point, one has to immediately take the opposite stance. If your criteria on that is too harsh, you start running into the 2 + 2 problem, imho, as in you believe it is four, well, so did Hitler.

While, again, it is really not that black and white, of course putting the heineous attacks themselves aside, which warrant a distinct black without nuance. But when questioning how it could come to all that, how the spiral of violence keeps spinning, I don't find it an abdomination to believe Israel could have done better or shares some of the blame too. I, honestly, wouldn't dare to judge too harshly, but it's complicated enough and there's not really an easy truth to be had. And if one reaches his own conclusions and Hamas has a similar take on some of them, well, then it is just as it is. I for one would not dismiss my honest opinion just because someone I loathe shares it.

But hey, that is just my take on things. Dill once more stated how destroying Hamas is a necessity for a two-state solution to work, and that he is certainly not a Hamas supporter, and how comes that he says some things they also say. If you think he's just dishonest and the label is still fair, then there's nothing I need to add.

You'll find numerous examples in my posts of how Israel could, and should do better.  You'll also find many examples of how much I dislike the Orthodox right of Judaism.  You'll also find my agreeing that there are times the IDF could, and should, have operated with more restraint.  You'll also find my agreeing that their conduct in the West Bank is often times deplorable.

But here's where I differ with you on Dill.  He has consistently made excuses for Islamic extremism, for ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the terrorist supporting state of Iran.  He is very clearly pro-Islamic, to the point where he refuses to even acknowledge the regressive force of extremist Islam as a catalyst for misogyny and homophobia throughout the Islam majority world.  It is, in fact, my pointing this out that caused the major rift between us.  I do believe he is smart enough to pepper his posts with calls for Hamas's destruction, all the while mitigating their actions, because he knows to do otherwise would be alienating.  One need look no further that his flat out stated usurpation of the Israeli hostage thread I created.  When I pointed out he was hijacking a thread on Israeli hostages to bang the drum on IDF war crimes he simply stated, "I like this thread just fine."

I will close by reiterating, Dill flat out stated he does not believe Israel has a right to exist as it has at any time post WW2.  I honestly didn't think he'd admit this, but doing so rather cemented my opinion of him on this issue

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-31-2024, 05:24 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Solid post, which I mostly agree with. 

We need 3rd legitimate party so badly. I voted for Ross Perot. 

Sad state of affairs.

i was planning to vote for him as well, and was quite disappointed when he dropped out. 
Took a few years to find out that Why, and then it just pissed me off even more.

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 05:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll find numerous examples in my posts of how Israel could, and should do better.  You'll also find many examples of how much I dislike the Orthodox right of Judaism.  You'll also find my agreeing that there are times the IDF could, and should, have operated with more restraint.  You'll also find my agreeing that their conduct in the West Bank is often times deplorable.

Israel could "do better."  Steady dispossession of Palestinians could be managed without "deplorable conduct." 

Political discussions about the Middle East can be more than a rehearsal of likes and dislikes, followed by policing of the wrong dislikes.

(03-31-2024, 05:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But here's where I differ with you on Dill.  He has consistently made excuses for Islamic extremism, for ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the terrorist supporting state of Iran.  He is very clearly pro-Islamic, to the point where he refuses to even acknowledge the regressive force of extremist Islam as a catalyst for misogyny and homophobia throughout the Islam majority world.  It is, in fact, my pointing this out that caused the major rift between us.  I do believe he is smart enough to pepper his posts with calls for Hamas's destruction, all the while mitigating their actions, because he knows to do otherwise would be alienating.  One need look no further that his flat out stated usurpation of the Israeli hostage thread I created.  When I pointed out he was hijacking a thread on Israeli hostages to bang the drum on IDF war crimes he simply stated, "I like this thread just fine."

I will close by reiterating, Dill flat out stated he does not believe Israel has a right to exist as it has at any time post WW2.  I honestly didn't think he'd admit this, but doing so rather cemented my opinion of him on this issue

Again, we're not going to get any examples of my alleged "excuses" and "mitigation." Just your word I do this "consistently."

Until we get the evidence, this is just old-style denunciation of witches or the religiously heterodox. or new Trump-style denunciation of "racist" prosecutors 
and the like. It's about creating and deploying emotional hot buttons for ideological policing, not about evidence, or we'd have the evidence. 

And now I'm "pro-Islamist" too. My "support" for ISIS didn't "cement" your opinion? And if I'm smartly "peppering" my posts with calls for Hamas' destruction, why won't that undermine all my "mitigation"? Where's Occam's razor now? 

Trying to make this a black vs. white conflict and discounting any notion of possible shades of grey merely makes the person arguing that look both intentionally disingenuous and a dogmatic adherent.

I acknowledge the regressive force of extremist Islam as a catalyst for misogyny and homophobia throughout the Islam majority world. Not a problem.

But I do have a problem with allowing such acknowledgement to displace critical thinking and contextual analysis with ready made stereotypes deployed for ideological ends.