The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[bengaloo]

(09-05-2021, 12:41 PM)Dill Wrote: When was 'natural immunity' proven to be far more effective? And how many people have such immunity? Do you have some links for this?

Also, I wasn't aware that vaccinated people are hard on people who have had COVID.

So far as I know, the big issue is still that there are millions of vaccine skeptics out there who won't get vaccinated, preventing us from reaching herd immunity, and forming a human petri dish in which the virus can keep on mutating stronger and more deadly strains.



Remember this thread wasn't really about the vaccine issue. It was about whether Taliban/Nazi comparsons are valid in discussion US politics.

"Make sure you polarize people further and stir up hatred. Remember kids, it is our responsibility, nay our duty, to compare our political opponents to Nazis, Isis and the Taliban."

https://www.commdiginews.com/health-science/health/tel-aviv-study-natural-immunity-to-covid-19-is-far-superior-to-vaccines-139873/

https://dreddymd.com/2021/09/01/study-natural-immunity-from-previous-covid-19-infection-vaccination/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

But no one should need this taught to them at this point except young people who have not reached the level of education required to be taught that natural immunity has always been effective and strong for viruses. In fact, the FDA has always only recommended the chickenpox vaccine for those who havent had chickenpox yet, and not for those who have rcovered from chickenpox --same with measles and other illnesses. Those who already had it, are already immune. This is old trusted, proven science that nobody should be questioning by now. Natural immunity is far superior and always will be. 

But lets also talk about those terrible Horsepills whilst we are at it. They seem to be helping some people get better with court orders helping to prove it... 
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-elmhurst-hospital-ivermectin-covid-court-order-20210504-2dvay7tatzartk2ijv23hgdxw4-story.html

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-release/ 


No more calling people names because they are unvaxxed. Ive seen far too many people do that and create more division when we should all be 100% open minded about all things related to covid treatments and developments. Its really not "vaccines or nothing". There are better treatments, especially monoclonal antibody treatment. Early treatment for active covid cases could literally save thousands of lives, and we should all be rejoicing news like this on all sides of the aisle! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 04:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the non-confrontational approach.

If I understand your first paragraph, the claim is that conducting public discussion of politics which undermine democracy has "real world ramifications" which are exactly the opposite than those intended. You speak of "polar opposite results" for example.

But I don't see that you have clearly established this claimed cause/effect relation. I haven't seen much evidence of Right Wing outrage over the scholarship I have mentioned. Do you have such?  It is not clear at all that books, such as those I mentioned, have no intended effect, such as increasing the knowledge/understanding of authoritarian politics in those who read them. Remember, we are discussing something quite different from tweets and memes. We can track the CRT hysteria directly back to its origin in Fox News segments and measure its progress in proposed legislation and video of angry parents confronting school boards. Anything like that for scholarship on authoritarian regimes? 

The premise of your second paragraph seems to be that people writing about authoritarian regimes have "zero real world experience of how their proposed ideas will actually impact society," and so their proposals inevitably fail. I am not sure how you know the kind or degree of experience they have, or what counts as "real world." You analogize them to criminal justice advocates, and write about them as if they had proposed legislation which, like a tariff, has produced measurable opposite effects. And they are contrasted to people like yourself, who know "people."

Yet I don't see any evidence of your claimed effect. 

Further, when I see "division" and "polarization" in US society, that rarely seems to follow from Nazi/Taliban comparisons, even at the tweet level. Rather, they depends much more upon who is speaking and the movement to transform proposals into politics--e.g., a wall to keep out "rapists" or a SCOTUS decision legitimizing gay marriage. Taliban tweets did not drive the movement to ban Sharia law in various states. I'd wager that, if Taliban/Nazi tweets ended today, the effect on "division" would be nil. 

Understanding something of "theory," by the way, is a prerequisite of democratic government. In order for that to work, the voting populace must know how democracy works and value democratic over anti-democratic politics. They must be able to tell the difference. I think I can better connect current divisions in the US to an inability to tell that difference, than to outrage because "Moore called us 'Taliban.'"


To the first bolded, it looks like we disagree on what "the average person" can or should be expected to understand. If you are right, then we are in trouble, because liberal democracy is predicated upon enough "average" people understanding enough about anti-democratic politics to keep their government democratic in form. That's always been the gamble, the experiment. And it requires some "book learnin'" to maintain that expected understanding, e.g., of principles of democratic government, how precarious such government is, and what guises anti-democratic tendencies may take. It also requires public discussion of politics which moves beyound sound bites and political caricature. 

Where I am proposing that informed public discussion/debate can educate, you are proposing such informed debate does more (as yet unsubstantiated) damage. If I understand you correctly.

I'd say part of our "division" at present arises from a deficit of knowledge about how democracies fail. If we cannot remedy that through public discussion we are already lost. Such discussion should be complemented by re-affirming civility and evidence-based reasoning, to move people past deliberate obstructors. Part of our "division" is a division over whether and how such complements should be valued--e.g., by not electing politicians who disrespect them.

Division also follows from books and news reports that are not at all well intentioned. Mark Levin's American Marxism will have a far wider readership than Stanley's How Fascism Works, though the former is disinformation and the latter is not. I don't think the remedy to that is for the scholars to shut up because they might offend the un- or disinformed. Surely we cannot let disinformation flow unopposed because responsible scholarship would upset people.

Your girlfriend doesn't understand how you can tell all your handguns apart. I say she should could learn quickly enough how to do that, if it were important to her. Books like Stanely's are calibrated to 12th grade/college freshmen level readers. Most adults can manage it too. Enough can manage comparisons between group "A" and group "B" to make a difference.

Thanks again for working through your reasons like this. Now you can show whether I have misunderstood them and/or provide some of the evidence I've found lacking.

I had a longer response typed up for this, then my cat jumped on my keyboard and page backed, so my whole response was erased.  I started typing it again when I realized there was little reason to do so.  I've made my point, clearly and logically.  I've provided real world examples.  If you still see no problems with these types of comparisons then there's really nothing more to be said.  I find them divisive and inflammatory, you see the "scholarly" benefit of such examples as outweighing that obvious consequence.  We don't agree and it's obvious that further discussion will not change either of our minds.  So we can leave it at that.

[treee]

(09-05-2021, 11:08 AM)bengaloo Wrote: With all the raw data coming out daily, and natural immunity proven to be far more effective than the covid shots, its good we can begin to put topics like this to rest. The vaxxed can at least let up on the unvaxxed who have recovered from covid based on raw scientific data that everyone has access to. They are safer to be around than the vaxxed who haven't recovered from covid at this point.

This is good news. We can stop hating each other and be happy that we are learning more everyday about all of this. Now if we could just get more doctors to actually start treating active cases, we could save many lives and move on from this all.

The topic is very much not at rest. All these unvaccinated people are filling up ICUs around the country and decreasing the quality of care of all other ICU patients.

[GMDino]

(09-05-2021, 08:17 PM)treee Wrote: The topic is very much not at rest. All these unvaccinated people are filling up ICUs around the country and decreasing the quality of care of all other ICU patients.

A friend posted this week that he is sick and wanted to get tested for Covid (he and his family are all vaccinated) and the wait at a MedExpress was four hours.

Another friend tried to go in Ohio for her arm and they weren't taking any new patients that day.

Today the local MedExpress was completely packed when I drove by at 11am.

And that's not even what the hospitals are going through.

[Dill]

(09-05-2021, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had a longer response typed up for this, then my cat jumped on my keyboard and page backed, so my whole response was erased.  I started typing it again when I realized there was little reason to do so.  I've made my point, clearly and logically.  I've provided real world examples.  If you still see no problems with these types of comparisons then there's really nothing more to be said.  I find them divisive and inflammatory, you see the "scholarly" benefit of such examples as outweighing that obvious consequence.  We don't agree and it's obvious that further discussion will not change either of our minds.  So we can leave it at that.

Well, we can't "leave it at that" if your claim is you have provided real world examples.  You have not. 

Also, you have not really addressed the following challenges to your position, as raised in my previous post:

1. Democracies are based upon open discussion of political issues in the public sphere. If discussion were forbidden because people found some topics "inflammatory," then we would be unable to discuss a range of topics from abortion to climate change. At a time when authoritarian politics are plunging the US into a crisis of democracy, it seems especially weak to argue that we should not be discussing historical antecedents because that might "inflame" the authoritarians. The more people who know how democracies die, the less they are likely to agree that protection of authoritarians' feelings trumps the principle of open discussion. 

If your reponse to this point is just to repeat "It just inflames people," then that is not a refutation at all, nor a reason to abandon a fundamental principle of democratic governance, though you may decide to do that regardless.

2. Why, in a democracy, should we suppose "average" citizens are incapable of sorting out public discussion of US politics informed by knowledge of how democracies die? That some cannot is true of all issues, but we don't make that lowered capacity of some the limiting standard of public discussion of any other issue, so why this one, specifically? 

You are in effect asking that we set aside two foundational principles of liberal democracy, to protect the feelings of those who might feel singled out by historical reminders. 

And you are doing so on the basis of anti-democratic principles--i.e., "average" people cannot be trusted to sort out the discussion.

And apparently to protect the feelings of those currently creating our crisis of democracy, who will find such discussion "divisive." 

Final point: the only "real world example" that you have provided is your personal feeling that public discussion/analysis of authoritarian regimes is "divisive and inflammatory."  You provided no links or examples of other people "inflamed" over the principle of political complarison, no videos of enraged parents challenging school boards etc. Lots of people are "inflamed" nowdays, about many things, including myself over the authoritarian turn of the Republican Party. But that is not a reason to stifle informed debate.

You did assert that some unspecified legislation, apparently prompted by critical legal theorists, didn't work because the theorists know theory but not people. Perhaps that is what you mean by a "real world example." If so,that is actually pretty vague, and you are still asking that I simply believe you when you say that you know "people" and theorists don't.  

In any case, LAWS which don't have an intended effect are not a "real world example" of the actual point you are supposedly arguing--namely that increasing public knowledge and discussion of authoritarian politics has some "opposite effect"--which would be what, that people understand LESS about the authoritarian turn in US politics? 

Even if a mistaken law were the right kind of example, and you provided an actually specific instance, it could easily be met by the point that a good deal of legislation actually does have its intended effect. We don't stop passing laws because one or two had the opposite effect.

But if you are re-affirming that you will not address the issues raised by your stance, especially regarding democratic principles, then I am prepared to "leave it at that."  

[Dill]

(09-05-2021, 12:53 PM)bengaloo Wrote: https://www.commdiginews.com/health-science/health/tel-aviv-study-natural-immunity-to-covid-19-is-far-superior-to-vaccines-139873/

https://dreddymd.com/2021/09/01/study-natural-immunity-from-previous-covid-19-infection-vaccination/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

But no one should need this taught to them at this point except young people who have not reached the level of education required to be taught that natural immunity has always been effective and strong for viruses. In fact, the FDA has always only recommended the chickenpox vaccine for those who havent had chickenpox yet, and not for those who have rcovered from chickenpox --same with measles and other illnesses. Those who already had it, are already immune. This is old trusted, proven science that nobody should be questioning by now. Natural immunity is far superior and always will be. 

But lets also talk about those terrible Horsepills whilst we are at it. They seem to be helping some people get better with court orders helping to prove it... 
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/2nd-wny-hospital-ordered-to-treat-covid-19-patient-with-experimental-drug/article_f32339f0-5d01-11eb-b752-4f8966804581.html

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-elmhurst-hospital-ivermectin-covid-court-order-20210504-2dvay7tatzartk2ijv23hgdxw4-story.html

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-release/ 

No more calling people names because they are unvaxxed. Ive seen far too many people do that and create more division when we should all be 100% open minded about all things related to covid treatments and developments. Its really not "vaccines or nothing". There are better treatments, especially monoclonal antibody treatment. Early treatment for active covid cases could literally save thousands of lives, and we should all be rejoicing news like this on all sides of the aisle! 

Hey Bengaloo, three questions:

1. did you notice that the COVID study you linked to has not been peer-reviewed? 

2. Even if it turns out that "natural" immunity following illness is better than the vaccine, that will only be true for people who have survived the illness. The problem is still people who don't any immunity, "natural" or from the vaccine, right? Is there any evidence that people who don't want the vaccine are prepared to get more "monoclonal antibody treatment" or other supposed treatments? And is there evidence that such treatment can be administered on the mass scale required to get us to herd immunity? 

3. Also, I notice that the author of your CDG article is neither a journalist nor a medical professional, but an IT person who takes pride in his "critical thinking skills." Are you satisfied with his assessment of a UK study claiming that COVID infection rates go up for vaccinated people under 50?

PS what is the relevance to the link about scientists who get the Nobel prize for work done fighting parasites?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-07-2021, 07:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, we can't "leave it at that" if your claim is you have provided real world examples. 

What are you talking about?  I just did.

[Dill]

(09-07-2021, 07:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What are you talking about?  I just did.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were providing examples of. Or perhaps we disagree on what an example is.

Here I how I understood your argument from post #53, starting with the first paragraph, where you lay out what I take to be the
issue which requires examples.

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not saying anything new here.  I don't think there was anyone who didn't understand what your stated objective was.  The problem is you don't understand how your stated goal and reality do not intersect, at all.  You say you may make such comparisons with good intentions, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the case.  However, the real world ramifications of such comparisons are radically different then your stated goal.  They do not increase understanding and they absolutely increase division and demonization.  When one's actions cause a polar opposite results to that intended it would behoove said person to reexamine said practice and analyze why such unintended results were achieved.

In the above, you seem to be addressing my claim that scholarship on authoritarian regimes should inform public discussion, especially during a time when a major party is taking an authoritarian turn.* Despite my "good intentions," attempts to thus inform US political discussion have "real world ramifications. . . radically different from [my] stated goal."  "Different" in the sense they DO NOT increase understanding.    I got that right, right? If not, then what have I misunderstood?

From the above I assumed that your counter-claim is based upon some "real world" experience of the issue at hand. I.e., You have observed efforts to infuse scholarship on authoritarian regimes and how they have backfired, increasing "division" rather than "understanding."  

So from that paragraph, I'm expecting you to lay out observations, examples, data, on efforts to thus inform public discussion which have NOT increased understanding but HAVE increased division. 

But then you seem to shift topics, speaking of criminal justice advocates, whose good intentions backfire, despite you (we?) telling them "exactly what happened would happen and why."  That IS what you are doing below, right?

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: . . . I work, especially within the past few years, with a lot of academics and advocates interested in criminal justice reform.  They largely, with some notable exceptions, have good intentions and genuinely want to make things better.  The problem, and it always, always comes up, is that they have zero real world experience of how their proposed ideas will actually impact society in the real world.  When they get the opposite result or their stated goal they always react with bewilderment, despite our informing them that exactly what happened would happen and why.  To state it in one sentence, they understand theory, they do not understand people.

I guess the first point to make here is--that is not an "example" of scholarship on authoritarian regimes having the opposite of its intended effect. It looks, rather, to be an non-specific example (if there can be such a thing) of how "leftists" get it wrong because they rely on theories and don't know people. A different topic, a different issue. 

Even if you are trying to link these different issues by analogy, saying that informing public discussion with scholarship on authoritarian regimes is just another example of "leftists" or "theorists" getting it wrong, this doesn't really do the job. First, if you are trying to argue my analogy, this is too vague to secure your point. Unless you can link me to some specific law with evidence you personally warned people, it goes south, then you are just asking me to take your word that your knowledge of "people" was thus vindicated over "theory." The "example" is your opinion about something that happens at your work place. Second, as I note in a pevious post, what about the times "theorists" get it right and laws have their intended effect? The failure of Smoot Hawley does not argue against any and all regulation of trade.

It is a very far leap, even by analogy, from your legal theorists whose ideas directly impact laws and police practice, to scholars participating in public debate. 

In short, this is NOT an EXAMPLE of scholarship on authoritarian politics increasing division and debate. As noted in my response, if you don't have links to protesters and angry Fox commentators and legislators ready to enact laws silencing the scholars inflammatory speech, then you do not have the examples or evidence you claim to have. 

The only real world example offered so far of "divisive" scholarship is your own personal sensibility, which finds this scholarship inflammatory and not enlightening. And that too is not coupled to specific examples of the scholarship you find offensive. You have only provided a couple to Tweets which are manifestly NOT scholarly attempts to inform. That's not what I mean by scholarship, right? So that is no what I am arguing for.

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How does this tie into you and your Nazi/Taliban comparisons?**  You state you make them to draw attention to what you believe are alarming trends in our country/democracy.  You attempt to highlight behavior you believe to be analogous to that exhibited by these awful groups with the intention of ensuring we never go down the same road.  The problem is, and will always be with such comparisons, is that the average person doesn't get the nuance, they see "X" group they don't like is comparable to Nazis/Taliban.  Most people don't want to engage in deep thought about ideological differences, they're in group "A" and the people they disagree with are in group "B".  When someone makes an argument comparing group "B" with Nazis or Taliban the only thing they internalize is group "B" are Nazis or Taliban.  I've provided two very obvious examples from major public figures in this thread, and digging up numerous other examples would be childishly simple.

The bolded may be true of some US citizens, and it may be true of many or most of those supporting authoritarian politics. 

But what evidence is there that "the average person" can't understand such comparisons well enough to learn something from them? And why should the average person be be "inflammed" by them? You can't just ASSERT that average persons are thus limited and then call that an "example."

Two quick points: 1) you are not offering "examples" here. An example would be a specific, actual person or group, whose statements or actions illustrate your point. Sans that, you are just ASSERTING there are such limited average people. I don't dispute that there are such, but see no reason why their limitation should be paternally catered to at the expense of those who can understand comparisons.

2) This line of argument presumes you know what is best for "the average person," what s/he does or does not need to know. This breaks with a foundational principle of liberal democracy--and the Enlightment--namely that citizens can learn and think for themselves, without the church or state paternally guarding ideas FOR them.  If that is NOT the case then popular sovereignty is a serious mistake. 

You might call this paragraph a very general explanation. But an explanation is not the same as an example. You have not presented anyone other than yourself who is "inflammed" or "divided" by informative scholarship, nor have you given a good reason as to why such inflammation, if you could provide examples beyond yourself, should regulate public debate. 

We don't silence Dr. Fauci or the CDC because what they say "inflames" and "divides." Why must we in this case? 

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, seeing as your stated goal is rarely, if ever, achieved in large numbers and your exact opposite intention is much more like the default interpretation than an aberration one must conclude that such comparisons, well intentioned on your part though they may be, are inherently destructive, polarizing and inflammatory.  I could end with a statement about the road to hell and all, but I trust you, and anyone else reading, get the point.

The bolded proceeds as if you have just demonstrated, specifically, that my "stated goal" of informing public debate with scholarship on authoritarian regimes is rarely achieved.  But where did you do that? What was your measure?

You now write as if you have proved there is some "default interpretion" though you have offered nothing more than your previous (unsupported) speculation about the limitations of "the average person."

I have just NOT been shown the destruction you say is occurring in the wake of the abovementioned scholarly information. I don't even see much response to the Tweets you referred to ino ther posts.  So you have not provided the three most needed elements of your argument:

1) specific examples of scholarship (e.g., a book, an interview with a historian or social scientist) which has led to "inflammation and division," exemplified by actual people reacting specifically to said book or interview. What you don't need is more highly general speculation about theorists who don't know "people" and the limited intellect of "the average person." 

2) and a rationale for why democratic principles of informed public debate and the presumption of citizen competence don't apply in this case. If you are not arguing they should apply in others as well (e.g., COVID information or climate change), then why in this case, where there is similar national danger,

3) or if you think there is no danger, no authoritarian turn in US politics to justify scholarly intervention, then you need lay out a case for that as well. No danger, then no need. But that is a risky argument to take as Republicans set up laws in swing states which can throw a "contested" election to the decision of a Republican legislator, composed of party members loyal to a leader who sought to overturn a legitimate election.

Without some satisfaction of these requirements, you are not resting your case on any concrete, specific evidence, just general and personal speculation about "destructive" effects which cannot even be found with a simple Google search.*** If you do think you have the required evidence/examples, I'd be happy to hear them; if not, then I am content if you leave your case unmade.

*"Scholarship" excludes things like reducutio ad Hitlerums, instances of Godwin's Law, political caricature, and Michael Moore tweets.
**A side note: I have argued twice that Trump doesn't fit the definition of a fascist--yet. I suppose that could be considered a "Nazi comparison"--but I don't see why it would "inflame" or "divide." 
***Well, you might find something like this--liberals complaining about Fox's frequent Hitler comparisons. But that supports no objection to scholarly information.https://fair.org/home/fox-news-is-outraged-by-nazi-analogies-and-other-big-lies/

[Dill]

(10-12-2021, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your analogy would hold water if I constantly, consistently, posted threads and made posts about Islam in a negative light.  If every time I found a story of a radical Islamist doing something awful I made a thread or a post about it we'd then be approaching what GM does with law enforcement.  Yes, I take umbrage with your dismissal of valid criticism of Islam.  Yes, I find your unwillingness to utterly condemn people who rape, torture and murder with wanton abandon reprehensible.  Yes, I find your willingness to compare people to Nazis and the Taliban both disgusting and hypocritical.  Yes, I have attacked you personally and have been attacked personally by you, Fred and GM.

Now, if your question is can I interact with Dino without rancor on any subject, the answer is yes.  Although, to be fair, he contributes to making that difficult.  But if you're talking about his using support for law enforcement as a talking point, then no, never.  I will always call that out, I will never let him hide behind any claim of support for law enforcement nor will I allow him to condemn others for a perceived lack of support without comment.

I hope that's clear.

Not clear. And our discussion now belongs here, where it is least likely to disturb others, not on the "Storming" thread.

I made no analogy between your Islam posts and Dino's cop posts. I merely responded to your claim that I "flipped a switch" when you called Islam an "ideology" which threatened Western values and civilization, and thus began my "negative" attitude towards you. I showed that the forum record doesn't bear out your version of events.

The analogy would fail anyway because Dino does not generalize from the actions of some cops to the entire law enforcement profession, as you do when you double down on your "valid" criticism that Islam is an ideology which threatens Western Civilization and democracy. 

Recall your recent defense of our anti-democratic Right: "The rather insidious part of these types of discussions is the idea of the "preemptive strike" against those supposedly attempting to overthrow or subvert or Democracy.  After all, once we've been convinced that "X" group is trying to destroy the nation won't any (preemptive) action taken to stop them be totally justified?"(#9)
 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Our-constitutional-crisis-is-already-here.
  
The risk of "preemptive strike" wildly over-exagerrated in your example, is exactly what has already followed from defining Muslims as threats to Western Civilization/democracy--everthing from Mosque shootings to anti-Sharia legislation to street assaults. The victims all harmless, law-abiding citizens.

I have suggested analogies between US and Islamic conservatism, in a mode of social scientific comparison, not name calling. On this very thread I have argued we should be open, on the same principal, to Nazi comparisons, though I have not myself made any. You twist that into a pretext for name calling, then proclaim a "disgust" utterly absent when you assert that I support ISIS. Also I am not unwilling to condemn people who rape, torture and murder. I'm just not willing to call them "animals," as you do. I'll bet most of the posters you admire won't do that either. Finding my refusal "reprehensible" is hyperbolic, selective affect. 

These inconsistencies in your alleged standards look affect-driven, ad hoc. One day it feels good to identify list members with radical Islamist groups, then next day it feels better to ban even sociological comparisons involving such groups as "disgusting." 

One day you worry that identifying anti-democratic traits in a group of US voters will open them to persecution, but the next you pursue that very tactic with a religious minority.

One day it feels great to condescend to other posters; another you feel it has happened to you and just plain wrong. 

I suspect your claim that I have personally attacked you also proceeds from this undisciplined affect. Challenging your statements, often by juxtaposing them with other of your statements, makes you "feel" attacked. In any case, you have no actual examples of my personal attacks because there are none.  You'd have to inflate some ambiguity in a descriptive statement to get one. I don't call people on this list liars or hypocrites or faux-intellectuals or disgusting. Just don't.

Hyperbole accompanies all. Dino is "sexist" on the basis of one post and then a post later proclaimed "misogynist" on the same evidence. He posts on the erratic behavior of an anti-vaccine Republican candidate and is suddenly guilty of "tarring huge swathes of people with the same brush"--i.e., huge swathes of anti-vaxxers. 

Three attacks in one week, on three different threads, to which Dino does not respond. But HE makes interaction "without rancor" difficult?  This consistent harassment is way beyond that law enforcement "hypocrisy" you can NEVER allow to pass.

What I dislike about this situation is that Dino has only two choices, to ignore the harassment, or to address it, thus turning every thread into an accusatory digression. Seems he has chosen the former, which leaves you dogging him from thread to thread, looking for any pretext to charge him with some "hypocrisy" du jour, turning the topic to Dino's character and contravening the TOC.  Why ever would list members think he, rather than, you were the problem? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-13-2021, 02:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Not clear. And our discussion now belongs here, where it is least likely to disturb others, not on the "Storming" thread.

That's fine, but don't worry, I don't intend for this to carry on very long.

Quote:I made no analogy between your Islam posts and Dino's cop posts. I merely responded to your claim that I "flipped a switch" when you called Islam an "ideology" which threatened Western values and civilization, and thus began my "negative" attitude towards you. I showed that the forum record doesn't bear out your version of events.

Yeah, it actually does, but you don't see it. 

Quote:The analogy would fail anyway because Dino does not generalize from the actions of some cops to the entire law enforcement profession,

This statement is as disingenuous as it is 100% bullshit.  At no point did I say every muslim is guilty of the same conduct as extremists.  By the same token GM absolutely does exactly that.  When you make thread after thread and post after post all deriding law enforcement you are doing exactly what you claim he is not.  How many thread and posts have I made about Islam.  How many posts and threads has GM made about law enforcement?  He can claim to support them al he wants, but it rings as hollow as a Klan member saying he doesn't actually hate black people.  His actions contradict this.  but again, Dill doesn't see it.

Quote:as you do when you double down on your "valid" criticism that Islam is an ideology which threatens Western Civilization and democracy. 

Does it not?  I've asked you before to show me a muslim majority country that doesn't treat women and homosexuals like garbage.  You ran from the question with your tail between you legs because you know a real answer would hurt your argument.

Quote:Recall your recent defense of our anti-democratic Right: "The rather insidious part of these types of discussions is the idea of the "preemptive strike" against those supposedly attempting to overthrow or subvert or Democracy.  After all, once we've been convinced that "X" group is trying to destroy the nation won't any (preemptive) action taken to stop them be totally justified?"(#9)
 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Our-constitutional-crisis-is-already-here.
  
The risk of "preemptive strike" wildly over-exagerrated in your example, is exactly what has already followed from defining Muslims as threats to Western Civilization/democracy--everthing from Mosque shootings to anti-Sharia legislation to street assaults. The victims all harmless, law-abiding citizens.

An interestingly contradictory position on your part.  So you decry it when the target is muslims but wholeheartedly endorse it when the target is the right.  Seems to me like you're proving my point for me.

Quote:I have suggested analogies between US and Islamic conservatism, in a mode of social scientific comparison, not name calling. On this very thread I have argued we should be open, on the same principal, to Nazi comparisons, though I have not myself made any. You twist that into a pretext for name calling, then proclaim a "disgust" utterly absent when you assert that I support ISIS. Also I am not unwilling to condemn people who rape, torture and murder. I'm just not willing to call them "animals," as you do. I'll bet most of the posters you admire won't do that either. Finding my refusal "reprehensible" is hyperbolic, selective affect. 

A deliberate mischaracterization of my position.  As to calling members of ISIS animals, I would 100% bet you are wrong.  I am very comfortable claiming that most people would agree with me on that score.

Quote:These inconsistencies in your alleged standards look affect-driven, ad hoc. One day it feels good to identify list members with radical Islamist groups, then next day it feels better to ban even sociological comparisons involving such groups as "disgusting." 

Well, when you defend said extremists it's hard to draw a different conclusion.  However, within this there is an important distinction.  Labeling an individual is radically different than labeling a large group.

Quote:One day you worry that identifying anti-democratic traits in a group of US voters will open them to persecution, but the next you pursue that very tactic with a religious minority.

Another deliberate mischaracterization.  My main issue with islam is how it is practiced in muslim majority countries.  That does not apply here.

Quote:One day it feels great to condescend to other posters; another you feel it has happened to you and just plain wrong. 

You honestly could have been making this comment directly to yourself.

Quote:I suspect your claim that I have personally attacked you also proceeds from this undisciplined affect. Challenging your statements, often by juxtaposing them with other of your statements, makes you "feel" attacked. In any case, you have no actual examples of my personal attacks because there are none.  You'd have to inflate some ambiguity in a descriptive statement to get one. I don't call people on this list liars or hypocrites or faux-intellectuals or disgusting. Just don't.

No, you have your own way of insulting them.  I'm sure you feel better for the difference, but the result is the same.

Quote:Hyperbole accompanies all. Dino is "sexist" on the basis of one post and then a post later proclaimed "misogynist" on the same evidence. He posts on the erratic behavior of an anti-vaccine Republican candidate and is suddenly guilty of "tarring huge swathes of people with the same brush"--i.e., huge swathes of anti-vaxxers. 

Dino made an obviously sexist post.  I pointed it out.  If you disagree produce the post and explain why it isn't sexist.

Quote:Three attacks in one week, on three different threads, to which Dino does not respond. But HE makes interaction "without rancor" difficult?  This consistent harassment is way beyond that law enforcement "hypocrisy" you can NEVER allow to pass.

Attacks?  My you have some thin skin if you perceive calling out misogyny or a person minimizing racism as an attack.  I suppose if a Klan member made a racist post you'd simply sit back, nodding and smoking your pipe.  I'm sure you wouldn't call it out for what it is, right?

Quote:What I dislike about this situation is that Dino has only two choices, to ignore the harassment, or to address it, thus turning every thread into an accusatory digression. Seems he has chosen the former, which leaves you dogging him from thread to thread, looking for any pretext to charge him with some "hypocrisy" du jour, turning the topic to Dino's character and contravening the TOC.  Why ever would list members think he, rather than, you were the problem? 

I'll leave it at this.  I have issues with exactly three members; you, Fred and GM.  Fred is well known as a dishonest poster, hence his no longer being here.  GM has had more than his fair share of transgressions with the CoC.  You have had a hard on for me ever since I dared criticize Islam.  Aside from that I disagree, or agree, in a respectful manner.  The three of you receive what you engender.  I have witnessed, as have many others, the extreme bullying from your two buddies against posters who no longer post here because of it.  You think that almost complete lack of right leaning posters in this forum happened by pure chance?

You ignore or excuse any behavior by those you like.  You have contributed as much as anyone to the lack of ongoing discussion here, but will never, ever, realize or acknowledge it.  So keep fiddling while Rome burns and keep attempting to place the blame 100% on my shoulders.  I honestly couldn't care less.  If it wasn't for a few posters that I like staying in contact with I would have left this place to become the circle jerk echo chamber you have strived to create long ago.

But you keep doing you, Dill.  I know it's easier to accuse than reflect.  I see it all the time.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2021, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is as disingenuous as it is 100% bullshit.  At no point did I say every muslim is guilty of the same conduct as extremists.  By the same token GM absolutely does exactly that.  When you make thread after thread and post after post all deriding law enforcement you are doing exactly what you claim he is not.  How many thread and posts have I made about Islam.  How many posts and threads has GM made about law enforcement?  He can claim to support them al he wants, but it rings as hollow as a Klan member saying he doesn't actually hate black people.  His actions contradict this.  but again, Dill doesn't see it.

You share the post where I said every police officer is bad vs pointing out the bad apples in that job force and I'll quit this forum, all of it, and never come back.

You made an accusation about me so I'm sure you're prepared to back that up.

Otherwise this is our last interaction from me.

But you keep doing you.  I know it's easier to accuse than reflect.  I see it all the time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2021, 03:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: You share the post where I said every police officer is bad vs pointing out the bad apples in that job force and I'll quit this forum, all of it, and never come back.

You made an accusation about me so I'm sure you're prepared to back that up.

Otherwise this is our last interaction from me.

But you keep doing you.  I know it's easier to accuse than reflect.  I see it all the time.

I'll make it real simple for you.  Find all your posts in which you say something positive about law enforcement.  Then find the posts/threads in which you said something negative about law enforcement.  You come off like a Klan member who doesn't "hate all blacks".  Your posting history speaks for itself.  You've definitely made feeble protestations that you don't hate all law enforcement, then you make ten threads about how much we suck.  Save it, no one is buying it.

[Dill]

(10-13-2021, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The analogy would fail anyway because Dino does not generalize from the actions of some cops to the entire law enforcement profession,

This statement is as disingenuous as it is 100% bullshit.  At no point did I say every muslim is guilty of the same conduct as extremists.  By the same token GM absolutely does exactly that.  When you make thread after thread and post after post all deriding law enforcement you are doing exactly what you claim he is not.  How many thread and posts have I made about Islam.  How many posts and threads has GM made about law enforcement?  He can claim to support them al he wants, but it rings as hollow as a Klan member saying he doesn't actually hate black people.  His actions contradict this.  but again, Dill doesn't see it.

Dino posts articles which concern police interaction with the public, many involving mishandling of arrests. That such articles exist for Dino to post, and in such numbers, raises legitimate political questions and issues which the public ought to be discussing in a free society--among them the question of whether there is a systemic aspect to police behavior.

Posting articles about cops behaving badly does not, in itself, "deride law enforcement"--unless the standard is that only posts celebrating law enforcement be allowed or that they do not push the issue of police violence beyond a few bad apples.   

The question here is not about quantity of posts, but about what inferences Dino makes from the actions of a few to the whole of law enforcement. Nowhere does he say or infer that all or even most cops are bad, that police are a danger to democracy or all bad. 

But his posts make you feel bad, defensive; they're about "how much WE suck," and so you make that inference yourself, then burden the list with constantly flagging "hypocrisy" you just KNOW is there instead of asking him what he actually thinks or intends.

Thus, when he posts a video of Trump's unsympathetic response to Capitol police, that can't be about Trump's hypocrisy--only Dino's. Your grudge has become a machine for repeatedly turning threads about new political events into threads about Dino's "insane level of hypocrisy." That might even pass muster if you could say something new, illuminating, or convincing, but you cannot. You just keep saying, not showing, that insane hypocrisy is there, refusing requests for proof, even a single post/quote. Your "evidence" is how you feel about ALL his posts. 

And so the machine goes on.

[Dill]

(10-13-2021, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:as you do when you double down on your "valid" criticism that Islam is an ideology which threatens Western Civilization and democracy. 

Does it not?  I've asked you before to show me a muslim majority country that doesn't treat women and homosexuals like garbage.  You ran from the question with your tail between you legs because you know a real answer would hurt your argument.

That was on the "Afghanistan" thread. And I answered--"Albania" (163). And when you said I "stopped" at Albania I added another, Bosnia Herzegovina (#218).  Anyone checking the thread will see substantive responses subsequent to the issue (#217, 223, 250). Yet you claim I "ran" from question answered in depth, with at least five posts. E.g.,ere's what I told you in post #218:

The issue between us is not whether there are some Muslim groups who practice religiously inflected violence/oppression. 

The issue is whether this should be used to characterize all or most practicing Muslims in the world, while you block social-scientific analogies between the US groups and authoritarian regimes like the Taliban or Nazis on the claim such comparison is "inherently inflammatory."  And at at time when general lack of knowledge about such societies is hindering public assessment of "what went wrong" in Afghanistan.

If you believe, as I do not, that "comparisons of any kind to such extreme groups always, I repeat always, has the effect of making the groups analogous, of linking them together," then what is the goal of such deliberate linkage between "radical" and "moderate" groups in YOUR arguments? 

"Valid criticism" doesn't address its targets as "human scum" and always has some goal beyond naming and blaming. So yes, your criticisms of "radical Islam" are indeed "viscious attack." They show no effort to go beyond selective media representations of Islam to understand the social, economic and historical determinants of current Islamic politics, let alone the differing demographic and religious composition of Muslim majority countries, comically assumed to be constant in their "oppression" of various groups, an oppression grounded in religion.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Afghanistan?page=11&highlight=albania


It hardly makes sense to dodge substantive responses to your posts and then claim I'm the one who ran. 

(10-13-2021, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: Recall your recent defense of our anti-democratic Right: "The rather insidious part of these types of discussions is the idea of the "preemptive strike" against those supposedly attempting to overthrow or subvert or Democracy.  After all, once we've been convinced that "X" group is trying to destroy the nation won't any (preemptive) action taken to stop them be totally justified?"(#9)

 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Our-constitutional-crisis-is-already-here.

The risk of "preemptive strike" wildly over-exagerrated in your example, is exactly what has already followed from defining Muslims as threats to Western Civilization/democracy--everthing from Mosque shootings to anti-Sharia legislation to street assaults. The victims all harmless, law-abiding citizens.

An interestingly contradictory position on your part.  So you decry it when the target is muslims but wholeheartedly endorse it when the target is the right.  Seems to me like you're proving my point for me.

One thing interesting here is that I support my claims about what you say with actual quotations and links to source. 

I am all for defining threats to democracy, provided there is some means of defining the threats and assessing risk systematically and rationally based on the kind of evidence which can pass muster in social science and legal venues. Just as I am against scapegoating minorities--which is NOT what the post OpEd was doing.

What I "decry" in your claim that Islam is an ideology and a threat to Western Civilization is your attempt to generalize from the actions of a few (e.g. ISIS) to the whole, a billion plus Muslims. I am saying yours is an inaccurate representation of Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are NOT a threat to Western Civilization because of their religion. Taking your claim seriously has led both to silliness, like anti-sharia laws in Oklahoma and PA, and to tragedy, like Mosque shootings. 

When I endorse an OpEd describing how the GOP is currently passing legislation to throw challenged elections to state legislatures, I am not generalizing the actions of a few to a whole; I am criticizing activities undertaken by many party operatives in a number of states, in a party-wide, coordinated strategy with MASS VOTER SUPPORT. The risk to democracy here is real. And the point of making such critiques is not to blame Republicans for just being bad. It is to raise public awareness and devise some means of practically countering the threat. Such counters will not likely lead to legislation banning "Christian" law or church shootings because they don't follow the logic of scapegoating false threats.

To conclude from this that I'm saying its bad to "decry" Muslims but ok to "decry" Republicans is crude and superficial reduction which completely misses how risk and whole are assessed in each case. 

So there is no contradiction on my part; but there is on yours if you are still hyping a non-existent Muslim threat to Western Civ, in full knowledge of how that creates risks for the millions of law abiding Muslims who pose no such threat, while warning of a highly unlikely "preemptive" strike against people who are actually working against democracy in US statehouses, with the endorsement of masses of voters. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2021, 11:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Posting articles about cops behaving badly does not, in itself, "deride law enforcement"--unless the standard is that only posts celebrating law enforcement be allowed or that they do not push the issue of police violence beyond a few bad apples.

Sure, but posting only articles that make law enforcement look bad absolutely does.  

Quote:And so the machine goes on.

Indeed it does, and the fact you don't realize you're an enormous cog in it is endlessly amusing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2021, 11:26 PM)Dill Wrote: That was on the "Afghanistan" thread. And I answered--"Albania" (163). And when you said I "stopped" at Albania I added another, Bosnia Herzegovina (#218).  Anyone checking the thread will see substantive responses subsequent to the issue (#217, 223, 250). Yet you claim I "ran" from question answered in depth, with at least five posts. E.g.,ere's what I told you in post #218:

The issue between us is not whether there are some Muslim groups who practice religiously inflected violence/oppression. 

The issue is whether this should be used to characterize all or most practicing Muslims in the world, while you block social-scientific analogies between the US groups and authoritarian regimes like the Taliban or Nazis on the claim such comparison is "inherently inflammatory."  And at at time when general lack of knowledge about such societies is hindering public assessment of "what went wrong" in Afghanistan.

If you believe, as I do not, that "comparisons of any kind to such extreme groups always, I repeat always, has the effect of making the groups analogous, of linking them together," then what is the goal of such deliberate linkage between "radical" and "moderate" groups in YOUR arguments? 

"Valid criticism" doesn't address its targets as "human scum" and always has some goal beyond naming and blaming. So yes, your criticisms of "radical Islam" are indeed "viscious attack." They show no effort to go beyond selective media representations of Islam to understand the social, economic and historical determinants of current Islamic politics, let alone the differing demographic and religious composition of Muslim majority countries, comically assumed to be constant in their "oppression" of various groups, an oppression grounded in religion.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Afghanistan?page=11&highlight=albania


It hardly makes sense to dodge substantive responses to your posts and then claim I'm the one who ran. 


One thing interesting here is that I support my claims about what you say with actual quotations and links to source. 

I am all for defining threats to democracy, provided there is some means of defining the threats and assessing risk systematically and rationally based on the kind of evidence which can pass muster in social science and legal venues. Just as I am against scapegoating minorities--which is NOT what the post OpEd was doing.

What I "decry" in your claim that Islam is an ideology and a threat to Western Civilization is your attempt to generalize from the actions of a few (e.g. ISIS) to the whole, a billion plus Muslims. I am saying yours is an inaccurate representation of Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are NOT a threat to Western Civilization because of their religion. Taking your claim seriously has led both to silliness, like anti-sharia laws in Oklahoma and PA, and to tragedy, like Mosque shootings. 

When I endorse an OpEd describing how the GOP is currently passing legislation to throw challenged elections to state legislatures, I am not generalizing the actions of a few to a whole; I am criticizing activities undertaken by many party operatives in a number of states, in a party-wide, coordinated strategy with MASS VOTER SUPPORT. The risk to democracy here is real. And the point of making such critiques is not to blame Republicans for just being bad. It is to raise public awareness and devise some means of practically countering the threat. Such counters will not likely lead to legislation banning "Christian" law or church shootings because they don't follow the logic of scapegoating false threats.

To conclude from this that I'm saying its bad to "decry" Muslims but ok to "decry" Republicans is crude and superficial reduction which completely misses how risk and whole are assessed in each case. 

So there is no contradiction on my part; but there is on yours if you are still hyping a non-existent Muslim threat to Western Civ, in full knowledge of how that creates risks for the millions of law abiding Muslims who pose no such threat, while warning of a highly unlikely "preemptive" strike against people who are actually working against democracy in US statehouses, with the endorsement of masses of voters. 

Really quick, first off, are you asserting that scapegoating is fine as long as the targets are not "minorities?"  Because you're poorly worded post certainly seems to intimate that.

Resuming, ISIS and the Taliban are "a few"?  They're easily tens of millions of people.  Are you really asserting that there are far more GOP "radicals" then there are Muslim "extremists"?  

The answer, I'm sure, will be as entertaining as it is evasive.  Feel free to take four or five stabs at it before finally leaving a post up, btw.  

[GMDino]

I'm only doing this to make it perfectly clear.

You made this claim.

(10-13-2021, 05:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is as disingenuous as it is 100% bullshit.  At no point did I say every muslim is guilty of the same conduct as extremists.  By the same token GM absolutely does exactly that.  When you make thread after thread and post after post all deriding law enforcement you are doing exactly what you claim he is not.  How many thread and posts have I made about Islam.  How many posts and threads has GM made about law enforcement?  He can claim to support them al he wants, but it rings as hollow as a Klan member saying he doesn't actually hate black people.  His actions contradict this.  but again, Dill doesn't see it.

For which I asked for proof. I would assume a person of your moral code would not accuse someone of something without proof.

(10-14-2021, 03:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: You share the post where I said every police officer is bad vs pointing out the bad apples in that job force and I'll quit this forum, all of it, and never come back.

You made an accusation about me so I'm sure you're prepared to back that up.

But instead you asked me to disprove YOUR claim.

(10-14-2021, 08:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll make it real simple for you.  Find all your posts in which you say something positive about law enforcement.  Then find the posts/threads in which you said something negative about law enforcement.  You come off like a Klan member who doesn't "hate all blacks".  Your posting history speaks for itself.  You've definitely made feeble protestations that you don't hate all law enforcement, then you make ten threads about how much we suck.  Save it, no one is buying it.

And not even the claim you made which was that I said every police officer was bad.

Heck I asked to have the Good cop/Bad cop thread removed because I was tired of the constant fighting over ANY negative story about an officer.

Then you have the nerve to accuse others of being evasive?

As you say: "...you keep doing you.  I know it's easier to accuse than reflect.  I see it all the time."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-15-2021, 09:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm only doing this to make it perfectly clear.

You made this claim.


For which I asked for proof.  I would assume a person of your moral code would not accuse someone of something without proof.


But instead you asked me to disprove YOUR claim.


And not even the claim you made which was that I said every police officer was bad.

Heck I asked to have the Good cop/Bad cop thread removed because I was tired of the constant fighting over ANY negative story about an officer.

Then you have the nerve to accuse others of being evasive?

As you say: "...you keep doing you.  I know it's easier to accuse than reflect.  I see it all the time."

You have never posted anything but negative stories about law enforcement.  You've started numerous threads specifically about it.  In your "Good Cop/Bad Cop" thread you did not post a single story that didn't portray law enforcement in a negative light.  Your own history makes my point.  As I said, you sound like a Klan member who claims they don't hate all black people.  Don't worry though, Dill believes you.

In any event, I'm done with this back and forth.  Feel free to continue, however.

[Dill]

(10-15-2021, 02:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Really quick, first off, are you asserting that scapegoating is fine as long as the targets are not "minorities?"  Because you're poorly worded post certainly seems to intimate that. 

Scapegoating is never fine. What I said was--

"I am all for defining threats to democracy, provided there is some means of defining the threats and assessing risk systematically and rationally based on the kind of evidence which can pass muster in social science and legal venues. Just as I am against scapegoating minorities--which is NOT what the post OpEd was doing."

Asserting that scapegoating minorities is wrong neither asserts nor "intimates" that scapegoating is fine "as long as the targets are not 'minorities," any more than saying that it is wrong to steal from banks asserts that it is "fine," then, to steal from grocery stores.

(10-15-2021, 02:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Resuming, ISIS and the Taliban are "a few"?  They're easily tens of millions of people.  Are you really asserting that there are far more GOP "radicals" then there are Muslim "extremists"?  The answer, I'm sure, will be as entertaining as it is evasive.

Now you've added "Taliban" to ISIS. But it is certainly not clear there are millions of Taliban. Last estimate I saw was between 70-80 thousand in their core force. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taliban-s-afghanistan-takeover-raises-big-questions-u-s-security-n1276911.
You could add to that, tops, 150,000 in support elements. There will eventually be more now that they have control of the country, as there will also be more opposition to them. The top estimate for ISIS at its height was 100,000. Even if you add in Al Qaeda, still not "easily tens of millions," or even a half million, unless you are conflating the total population of A-stan or Syria with these groups. Pew research now estimates there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. So in respect to the total population, the groups you cite are indeed a few. Are they even .1% of the total? 

Another unwarranted leap leads you to assume I made some point that stands on comparing total numbers of radicals to radicals. 

That's just a red herring, and confuses and conflates different issues. Even if there were more total numbers of radicals out of 1.8 billion Muslims than out 74 million Republicans, we'd still be left with a GOP push to control elections via state legislatures is a real problem, a real threat to democracy right now, whatever the proportion of GOP to Muslim radicals. 

Also Muslim 'radicals," in the context of ISIS and Taliban, implies a minority inclined to violence. There is such a minority in the GOP, and maybe its numbers are less than .01 of the total membership. But those 'radicals' are not the ones driving legislation which will take election results away from the voters. They could not be doing that without the support of tens of millions who would otherwise vote their representatives out of office.

So opposing the legislative actions of a major political party, in part by measuring their action against democratic ideals and theory to block their legislation and vote them out of office, is not "scapegoating." But you cast normal democratic opposition as exactly that, setting up "preemptive" strikes and such, as has already happened to Jews and Muslims over the last few years by Americans who fear "replacement." If you were correct, it would mean (as Hollo pointed out) that virtually any challenge to a party program could be called "scapegoating." Democratic politics would be impossible. 

Scapegoating involves displacing or projecting one's problems onto another group of people deemed the real cause and threat. There can be real threats, for example, to democracy, which if not addressed will end it, as has happened recently in Russia and Hungary. The question is how to determine and assess real threats. ISIS was/is a threat to American democracy. But groups like ISIS and the Taliban do not make ISLAM a threat to American democracy.  Nor does treating "women and LBQT like garbarge" in Muslim majority countries, as happens in virtually all developing countries, Muslim or not. There is no evidence of a stealth Sharia take over, as there is evidence that GOP legislation in swing states will negate the integrity of elections. 

(10-15-2021, 02:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Feel free to take four or five stabs at it before finally leaving a post up, btw.  

????

[Dill]

(10-15-2021, 02:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but posting only articles that make law enforcement look bad absolutely does.  

Indeed it does, and the fact you don't realize you're an enormous cog in it is endlessly amusing.

Dino just posted an article making law enforcement look good a few days ago, and you called that an "insane level of hypocrisy."

You analogized him to a racist who has some black friends.  That's just discounting counter-evidence.

And to clear up some ethical confusion here, it is not Dino and the articles which he posts that "make law enforcement look bad,"
but the behavior often recorded in them. Your personal attacks on Dino for posting on police violence don't look good,
when part of the issue is whether there is a culture of denial in some police departments. Personal attack and "calling out"
are absolutely the wrong way to go about convincing people that is not a problem.

I've laid out a number of examples, quotations, in which you assert a standard of conduct in one post and then violate it 
in another,  and in which you have constructed a narrative of your own behavior which cannot be supported by the forum record. 

Given all that, claiming to be "amused" and "enterained," in lieu of counter-argument, looks rather like a defense mechanism.