Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[hollodero]

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Re: the last bolded, indeed you cannot. 

Well, to be fair, neither can you prove that I'm wrong. Eg. when it comes to my view of the two-party system being toxic and a bad system, there's no conclusive evidence. Just hints like your country not looking so hot right now, politically speaking.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Re: the first, I might be hard to convince that the "typical liberal" is a righteous condescender who laughs at uninformed bigots and calls them "racist" who need to be educated (my thing?) because--

1. In this forum, I get called "stupid" and "racist" and condescended to with quite some frequency by our friends on the right, who find my posts, and me, "silly" and "laughable." yet I don't return such invective in kind.* You've not noticed that? If you are right, why isn't the reverse true? 

OK. In case I did not get into this kind of thing enough already. Yes I am aware you get called things, especially from SSF with his silver tongue (copyright Roto), and I am not defending that. Never was. And I know you don't conduct yourself the same way. And I would not want to evaluate if what you are doing is equally worthy of critizism.

But here's what you most certainly do, for starters. You engage. And I don't get that. If I come across someone I consider a particularly unpleasant fellow, I will cut down on my interactions or stop them eventually. You, however, grinded your teeth into one another, pages over pages in threads over threads. And sure, I noticed things that could make you legitimately angry, but I could quite often also understand what made SSF or maybe also others angry. And no you don't call people racists, I know, but you might equate something they say to something someone said in defense of racism, or things like that. And I know you don't want to be condescending, but people tend to get that impression when you put their words in quotes and then try to pick them apart. But actually, I have no intention of presenting you my insignificant thoughts on your conduct. You're a nice person and a fine poster and most certainly don't represent the worst of the liberal side.

But have you ever wondered why I (and Bels, though that guy actually knows stuff, so this is a bit different) got along with SSF so much better? We both sure did not pander to him, I disagreed with him almost as often as you did and sure did not hide that. And yet there were no harsh words. I'd assume the reason was that I did not try to prove him wrong, I tried to explain why I saw things differently. We didn't make it personal. But when people (not you) jump to clever retorts like pointing out how a policeman can have no moral compass or how he is a coveted Trump fan or doesn't care about racists or things of that kind, I can understand why his feelings towards liberals are getting worse. And at times I even understand how not saying anything about any of that gave an impression of complicity, aka I don't attack my fellow liberal no matter what.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. As far as the "need to be educated"--that charge is pretty fuzzy.

Agreed. I shouldn't have gone there.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. You were accused of condescension once a few months back, weren't you? And yet I don't think you were condescending.

I don't remember. I will say this though. I'm certain I got called out on this less often that I would have deserved it.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Someone just "felt" that way because you appeared to have more knowledge on a subject. Have you never wondered how much of the rhetoric about condescending liberal elites might be manufactured? Why does Hannity have to free-associate condescension of liberal elites to virtually every subtopic on his show every night? I'm not disputing there might be 'liberals' who do it

Good.
And of course the rhetorics about condescending elites most often is manufactured. Just sometimes based on a shred of truth.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Rachel Maddow doesn't tell her audience nightly that our Repub masters think they are better than us.

I don't want to attack her, she's a product of the times and one of the bettter ones at that. But Rachel Maddow sure tells me which side are the good guys. Of course not on the same level as Hannity, and of course that's where the similarities end. But she is team blue and it's not hidden away.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: 4. Horrors to say the conservative side is "more open" about disdain. Like that's a positive, more honest, when it is in fact the principled rejection of honesty, dialogue and compromise.

It wasn't meant as a positive.

(11-08-2022, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: What is the thing that Dems might do which would end the deadlock? You think we have it because Dems don't listen? The division would ease and finally end if they did? Until they do they are partially responsible? 

No, I don't think that. As indicated, I think the two-party system created this toxic, bipolar, divisive mess and if you continue to employ it, you're probably doomed. A step to a solution could be the Maine model of voting, or some other reforms. That is my position, not that liberals can necessarily end the deadlock by being better. Chances are you reached a point of no return and it can't be ended.