Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4477 Nov 29 2017 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,433 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Fear is why gbaji is a conservative, obviously. Science!
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are afraid or not afraid.
I'd argue fear is temporarily relevant.

Fear gets the headline because it's a good divider at the present time. How much you're worried about things like immigration and terrorism is a hot topic, and one of the main factors in how people are choosing to vote right now. Obviously (as you pointed out in your 9/11 example) this isn't always the case. If the vast majority of people feel one way or another on a topic it stops being a useful tool for politicians, as it can no longer divide "us" and "them" in a way that gets you more votes. *** marriage is a good recent example. It got a lot of press when people were more-or-less equally divided on the issue, but quickly sank away as the majority came to accept it.

There's a wide variety of ways that people can process information, arrange moral priorities, solve problems, assess sensibility and fairness, etc. The only ones that are politically relevant are the ones that are currently divisive. Things that are seen as more core "conservative" or "liberal" have likely just been divisive in that population for a longer period of time.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4478 Nov 29 2017 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
IMO, what makes one politically Liberal or Conservative


Way to go with your science to disprove anything!!!!!

Literally (Like LITERALLY) no one cares about your opinion. It is as full of **** and hatred and FEAR as you are.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4479 Nov 30 2017 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
******
49,896 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
There's a wide variety of ways that people can process information,
Like calling it fake to avoid having to process it. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4480 Nov 30 2017 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,433 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
There's a wide variety of ways that people can process information,
Like calling it fake to avoid having to process it. Smiley: thumbsup
My favorite one goes like this:

Person 1: Here's a source that says your candidate did a bad thing.

Person 2: That can't possibly be true, look at the biased source it came from! If it's true how come <insert opposing equally biased source here> hasn't reported on it?

Person 2 doesn't usually like the answer to that question though... Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Nov 30th 2017 9:30am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4481 Nov 30 2017 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,461 posts
Here is my favorite one:

Person 1: We need to stop testing our products on animals!

Person 2: But shampoo companies do it all the time!

Person 1: Yes, but we sell Dill Does! (Misspelled on purpose)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4482 Nov 30 2017 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,461 posts
Tax Cut Facts from Kansas.

Philip Bump on Twitter wrote:
Here’s what actually happened after Kansas cut taxes in 2012 — and California increased them.


Screenshot
Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4483 Nov 30 2017 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,433 posts
I mean, it's still Kansas. What did they think was going to happen? Smiley: oyvey

Need a better reason that that to move to the middle of nowhere. Better idea would be to do what they did in North Dakota and start paying 6-figure salaries to random people if they promised to make gas.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4484 Nov 30 2017 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,445 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Fear is why gbaji anyone is a conservative, obviously. Science!


I've only been saying this for 15 years....

I mean come on. "Ewww I hate gays because they might turn me *** or get their cooties on me." "Gotta have guns! There are BAD GUYS with guns ALL AROUND ME!" "FREEDOM ISN'T FREE WE HAVE TO DEFEND 'MURICA FROM THE TERRORISTS!" It goes on and on like this. Every conservative talking point has fear at its inner most core.



Edited, Dec 1st 2017 1:45am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#4485 Dec 01 2017 at 12:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,461 posts
I have a tape of @realDonaldTrump engaging in oral *** with other men, and whether it is a real video, the threat is real.

"what he’s done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue" and what I've done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real c**ksucker
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4486 Dec 01 2017 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Sanders wrote:
Whether it is a real video, the threat is real. That is what the President is talking about, that is what the President is focused on is dealing with those real threats, and those are real no matter how you look at it.
I guess what happened in Vegas and Texas aren't real enough to be worth dealing with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4487 Dec 01 2017 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Be scared of Muslims! Doesn't matter if the videos are fake or not, they show scary things and Muslims are scary so be scared!!!

And people say that conservatives don't base their beliefs on fear...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4488 Dec 01 2017 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,579 posts
I'm afraid that endless deficit spending will eventually hamper our ability to spend money on legitimate public services due to ballooning debt service payments, lead to massively increased taxes, and/or prompt the government to inflate away the problem. I'm afraid that a Congress unwilling to exercise its Constitutional war-making powers to keep check on an Executive branch with increasingly innovative ways to murder people abroad will lead to more meaningless wars with no clear objective. I'm afraid that secretive, unsupervised and warrantless spying on Americans will embolden authoritative elements and erode basic liberties of privacy and individualism. I'm afraid that the continued crackdown and punishment of mostly harmless (and disproportionately minorty) drug users, and the lack of accountability of law enforcement officers who steal from and kill (disproportionately minority) citizens with impunity will erode the basic order of a law-governed society.

Holy shit, you're right!

(the argument over whether the current Republican party is actually conservative is another one entirely)
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#4489 Dec 01 2017 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
I'm afraid

Noted. Take it up with the Republicans and their terrible tax bill.

Edited, Dec 1st 2017 9:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4490 Dec 01 2017 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,461 posts
I wonder if Flynn is more or less afraid, this morning.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4491 Dec 01 2017 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
******
49,896 posts
Increasingly innovative ways to murder people abroad leading to more meaningless wars with no clear objectives is how I'm paying for my summer home, yo.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4492 Dec 01 2017 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Increasingly innovative ways to murder people abroad leading to more meaningless wars with no clear objectives is how I'm paying for my summer home, yo.

I pay your salary so it's my summer home, too. Send me the address.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4493 Dec 01 2017 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,461 posts
I don't think we are supposed to call them broads, anymore.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#4494 Dec 01 2017 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Send me the address.
1060 West Addison.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4495 Dec 01 2017 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey, wait a second...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4496 Dec 06 2017 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,896 posts
I'm glad that after the shootings in Texas and Vegas that we're making it easier for people banned from carrying due to their stalking and domestic abuse convictions to arm themselves.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4497 Dec 06 2017 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Creepy possessive wife-beaters deserve to protect themselves from the King of England too, ya know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4498 Dec 06 2017 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
News is that Franken will announce his resignation tomorrow. Minnesota has a Democratic governor who will appoint an intermin senator so it won't change the calculus any.

It's a shame. I was very impressed by Franken's book and had hoped good things for him. It's too bad that he had this side of him that is increasingly apparent wasn't just one or two misinterpreted or unintended one-offs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4499 Dec 07 2017 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
******
49,896 posts
Jophiel wrote:
News is that Franken will announce his resignation tomorrow.
I'd be more impressed with him and Conyers decisions to step down if congresscritters weren't working to get Moore in.

Steps forward, steps back etc etc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4500 Dec 07 2017 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,934 posts
Some local woman has given my phone number out as the emergency contact for all her kids' schools.

So over the past few years I keep getting added to random robo call, text systems, and contacted by pretty much every school in the district. Informing me that my son Levi, or daughter Ashley, or what ever other random kid either isn't at school, or hurt themselves and being sent home after school with a bandage so I shouldn't worry, blah blah blah.

I've called pretty much every office, blocked numbers, etc. They can't get my number out of their system. Last time they asked me for my name so they could look me up and remove my name. It's like they fail to understand that my NAME isn't in their damned system. My number is. And I want them to remove it. Not only because it wakes me up at 4am in the morning with a text message buzzing letting me know that it's a snow day, but because every time they call ME in an emergency contact situation, the real person isn't getting the info.

I think I'm going to have show up at the school and talk to them in person... you'd think that after a year of blocking numbers I'd finally get them all but these texts seem to be random, and also shared with other automated systems that I don't actually want to block...

And the texts don't give me an "Opt Out" option, just says "Contact the school your student is associated with".

Why is this so hard?

Edited, Dec 7th 2017 6:58pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4501 Dec 07 2017 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Fear is why gbaji is a conservative, obviously. Science!
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are afraid or not afraid.
I'd argue fear is temporarily relevant.


Sure. To whether you react to the thing that is causing fear. My issue was with the study's assumption that conservative positions are associated with fear responses, but liberal positions are not. This is the starting premise, which they basically use in a circular fashion: (since people who form positions from fear are conservatives, and we got people who normally consider themselves liberal to form a position from fear, then we turned liberals into conservatives!). Um... Everyone reacts to things that have the potential to harm them. Everyone.

When a liberal fights to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, is he not reacting to the "fear" of climate change, and the potential harm it might do? Kinda hard to watch videos of floods, glaciers breaking apart, hurricanes blowing roofs off buildings, etc, all labeled as "things that might happen to us if we don't do something about this, like RIGHT NOW!!!", and not conclude that a fear methodology is being used to influence people.

We can say the same about a host of social issues. Fear of discrimination. Fear of poverty. Fear of hunger. Fear of homelessness. Fear of illness. Fear of social alienation. Fear that if you are the wrong skin color, you'll get shot by the cops. Fear that if you are a woman, you'll be sexually assaulted. Fear that if you are ***, you will be bashed. All of these causes are driven by fear. All of them use fear to get people to support a given position on those issues.

Yet it's the conservative "side" that is labeled as fear based? I just don't see it. I'm obviously biased here (and perfectly willing to admit it), but I see conservative positions as being far less based on fear than liberal ones. Or, more to the point, that we are more likely to set aside our fears and analyze the thing being proposed and determine if it's actually something to be worried about, whether the risk of harm merits the cost of action, etc.

I see a lot more "absolute" arguments coming from the right than from the left. A conservative will tend to argue cost versus benefit. A liberal will argue that someone has a "right" to something, or the absence of something is a "violation of <someone's> rights", and reject any talk of "cost" as some form of bias/bigotry. There's no end point to those latter forms of argument. There is no balance. And yeah, I think a lot of those forms of argument derive their support by fear than the ones we conservatives make. Or at least, fear is used to generate support for them.

I'll make an argument about the proposed tax changes by pointing out the conditions under which one might have to pay more in taxes, and conclude that it's unlikely to be people at the lower ends of the economic spectrum, and is not significant enough to outweigh the numerous benefits of the proposed changes in any case. A liberal will just proclaim it to be "Armageddon!", claim it'll hurt everyone, will cause funding to be cut down the line, etc. It's pretty clear that they want people to be afraid of what might happen if the tax law is changed, right? Why is that not "fear"?

Quote:
Fear gets the headline because it's a good divider at the present time. How much you're worried about things like immigration and terrorism is a hot topic, and one of the main factors in how people are choosing to vote right now. Obviously (as you pointed out in your 9/11 example) this isn't always the case. If the vast majority of people feel one way or another on a topic it stops being a useful tool for politicians, as it can no longer divide "us" and "them" in a way that gets you more votes. *** marriage is a good recent example. It got a lot of press when people were more-or-less equally divided on the issue, but quickly sank away as the majority came to accept it.


Again though, I think fear exists or does not exist on its own. I don't think it's the underlying reason why people in society might disagree with each other about something. You are correct that when a closer consensus is reached, we tend to stop arguing as much about things. But I don't think that has to do with one side ceasing to "be afraid" of whatever is dividing them. We don't do this in most things we disagree over, right? If half of our group wants to see film A tonight, and the other half film B, we are more likely to have a long argument about it than if 9 out of 10 people want to see film A. That does not mean that in the first case, the two halves were "afraid" to watch the other film though.

And honestly, while I agree with you that fear is often used to rile people up about an issue, I don't think that it's what usually causes us to form our positions in the first place. Also, the use of fear as a means to raise an issue doesn't make the issue itself invalid, nor the position invalid, nor the choice of an individual in response invalid (or even "based on fear"). I have a position regarding immigration policy. It's not based on fear. It's based on a set of logical premises and arguments and conclusions. To dismiss my position on immigration by claiming that I'm "afraid of immigrants" is not only absurd, but often just a tactic to avoid discussing the actual position and argument(s) in support.

And I tend to find that to be cheap and not terribly useful. We can always just dismiss the other "sides" position by claiming they are reacting based on fear. It means nothing. So it's not useful as a means of making decisions.

Quote:
There's a wide variety of ways that people can process information, arrange moral priorities, solve problems, assess sensibility and fairness, etc. The only ones that are politically relevant are the ones that are currently divisive. Things that are seen as more core "conservative" or "liberal" have likely just been divisive in that population for a longer period of time.


Yeah. But I think that most of the things that are divisive aren't themselves motivated by fear. Usually, people disagree because they have different objectives, or they disagree on the "rules". Fear may be used as a tool to convince people to side with you (although I agree that this is usually short lived), but it doesn't drive the difference in opinion/position in the first place.

My position on taxes, for example, flow from my opinions about economic principles themselves. I happen to believe that most people, if they have money, will tend to use it in ways that make them more money over time. Because of this, I happen to believe that the best approach is to create an economic system in which the best methods for those with money to increase it, will be to take actions that benefit other people along the way (like create successful businesses that create jobs for workers, and products for us to buy that improve our lives). And I happen to also believe that those people are the best equipped to make such decisions with that money and thus produce the most benefit for everyone else along the way.

If someone else believes that those with money will not use it in ways that benefit others, and who believes that their money would be better used in the hands of a government organization, charged with using it "for the public good", they will support things like higher taxes, greater regulation, etc, all designed to move money out of the hands of private citizens (who can't be trusted to use it well), and into the hands of government (who, presumably, can be trusted with it cause that's their job, right?).

Our disagreement in this case is pretty darn fundamental. And we could certainly use fear as a part of our argument. I could point to the fear of having your property seized and used without your consent, big government, abuse of power, etc. The other guy would point to the fear of monopolies, oligarchies, wealthy people flaunting the laws, doing whatever they want, lording it over the "little people", etc. But neither of us are forming our position based on fear, and I think it's frankly silly to argue that. We're starting with completely different assumptions about the world around us, and how people behave. That's something that can only change, gradually, over time, as we perhaps experiment with different policies, see how they affect things, make adjustments, etc. Eventually, we'll arrive at something that is usually not 100% one side or the other, but enough "in the middle" that both sides can accept it.

And once that happens, the division will die down. Well, somewhat anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (51)