• Outlander
    138


    Someone "like me"? Have we met? Lol. I post counterarguments here often for little more reason than to do so. Well.. perhaps to learn more of course. And perhaps to aid others I can relate to.

    That said before continuing please, spare no courtesy or manners. Myself and others here would assuredly like to know your truest and deepest essence in engaging opposing views.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    384
    Jesus Christ, this recent interview with Charlamagne the God:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOIFs_SryHI

    If you don't support me "then you ain't black." He also refers to the interviewer as "man" 3 times and ends the interview with "see ya later pal." Do you think he'd be addressing a white crowd like this? Particularly a wealthy white crowd? It's just strange to me.
  • Xtrix
    817
    I'll go ahead and be "reprehensible." It's the fact that you think it's your right to judge that keeps me on the sidelines. You all think you're the judge, jury, and executioner. But it's your funeral.neonspectraltoast

    What a silly argument. It's your funeral, too. So you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot because some people online are mean and judgmental? Who cares about that? There's only one thing that matters: are they right? If it's pure name-calling, just ignore them. If they're giving facts and evidence and also being cantankerous, then ignore the latter and look at the facts.

    Speaking for myself: I don't think you're reprehensible. I don't think people voting for Trump are evil, I don't think people voting third party are evil, etc. I certainly understand their frustration and wholeheartedly agree that Biden is a very weak candidate indeed. I say that those voting third party or not voting, when their stated goals are the same as mine, are assisting Trump in getting re-elected. I don't think it's evil or reprehensible, I just think it's an easily demonstrable mistake.

    The entire argument hinges on what your goals are. The example I always use is climate change. If you profess to care about this issue, then it follows you should vote Biden. Why? Because when you look at the policies of Trump compared to what Biden is proposing or what Obama did, it's clear which is better for the environment. That's not saying much, given Trump's policies, but it's at least "better."

    So it follows for other policies as well. I reject that Biden and Trump are the same person with the same policies, and I reject that not voting or voting third party does any good whatsoever to change the DNC -- there's no evidence for that. I also reject the short-term argument, which completely ignores the very small window we have for addressing the climate crisis, and the re-shaping of the judiciary (which will have effects that will be felt for generations).
  • Frank Apisa
    1.8k
    Interesting! Personally, I could live with the choice of Harris. (Though Joe hasn’t called me yet to get my thoughts on the issue.) You think DT will drop Pence as VP? Could be... Who might the GOP VP nominee be then, one wonders? Someone even more obedient? Cuter? A woman to match up strategically with Biden’s choice?0 thru 9

    I've been thinking he might choose a woman. Nikki Haley might make sense...but she may be too smart to take the shot. Republicans are running scared right now.

    Trump is nuts, though, and it would not amaze me if he tried to get Ivanka or Jared bumped up. (Yeah, very long shot, but with this guy, anything goes.

    Pence may be sacrificed as the guy who screwed the pandemic thing up.
  • Frank Apisa
    1.8k
    Outlander
    98
    ↪Frank Apisa

    Someone "like me"? Have we met? Lol.
    Outlander

    I have been at this Internet posting thing since the late 1990's. We old-timers develop impressions of the cyber selves with whom we interact. If you are not at that point yet, you will be soon...and then you will understand.


    I post counterarguments here often for little more reason than to do so. Well.. perhaps to learn more of course. And perhaps to aid others I can relate to.

    That said before continuing please, spare no courtesy or manners. Myself and others here would assuredly like to know your truest and deepest essence in engaging opposing views.

    Okay! Right now I am trying to find out what YOU would do differently if given the opportunity. You have been finding lots of fault with the politicians...which is the easy part of the issue.

    So...sans courtesy and manners...just what the fuck would you do differently if your shaggy ass were able to win an election anywhere at any time?
  • Outlander
    138


    What I do now. Nothing.
  • neonspectraltoast
    195


    Yes, maybe the climate is impo
  • neonspectraltoast
    195
    Bryant enough that I'll vote Joe. But it's so, so begrudgingly. That I doubt I'll bring myself to do i
  • Xtrix
    817


    I'll be holding my nose too, buddy. Believe me. Same in 2016, same in 2012 and 2008 and 2004, etc. I wanted Bernie and I loathe the DNC and most democrats. If there's one thing I resent the Republicans for, personally, is that they've gone so extreme that they make voting for them impossible. And so we're essentially forced to caucus with Democrats.
  • neonspectraltoast
    195
    Nevermind, my post is all kinds of fucked up.

    Suffice it to say, even given climate change... Well, people are gonna have to be boisterous about Joe.

    Because I see right through him. It's our society, like it or not, that needs to change.

    In fact, I don't see how an effort to stop climate change is feasible given "human nature." Republicans will line the streets with automatic rifles if we do what it takes. And Biden's not going there.

    Like I said before, it's just one dystopia vs. another. It's hard, really hard for me, to cast a vote for anyone I plainly see leading us into the dark. Lots and lots of people think the dark is the light, though. A conscience isn't something most people put stock in.
  • Outlander
    138


    Actually, when you differentiate between the average understanding of politics and it's true nature there is a huge learning curve. It's the only thing separating humanity from an all out gore fest. The average up and coming young politician doesnt know this and often never does. Nor do some 'experienced' ones. Every position from the lowest city major to the highest office in the land has advisors who do. People who study economics, civics, society, history, behavioral science, and just about everything else who advise and inform what decisions should or should not be made and why.

    It's not a purely analytical or judicial thing. That is what I mean when I say I would do nothing.

    For fun I'd say I'd naturally include a few mandated courses in philosophy or higher reasoning in education. Or perhaps not. Ignorance is bliss.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    Possibly you don't recognize that what used to be the Republican party now is in and part of the Democrat party. I think it started with Nixon. Pause with Ford, more with Reagan. and so forth. Clinton economics were attractive. Then Karl Rove was hard for honorable men to endure. That is, the Republican party has been increasingly the home for outrageous liars and increasingly outrageous lies. Who had the largest and best inauguration? Who's electoral win was the best and biggest?

    And it's not so unreasonable. Wash the right-wing hoo-haw out of most republicans, and, wingnuts and whackdoodles excepted, you get decent approximation of a Democrat - just add a little heart.
  • Frank Apisa
    1.8k
    Actually, when you differentiate between the average understanding of politics and it's true nature there is a huge learning curve. It's the only thing separating humanity from an all out gore fest. The average up and coming young politician doesnt know this and often never does. Nor do some 'experienced' ones. Every position from the lowest city major to the highest office in the land has advisors who do. People who study economics, civics, society, history, behavioral science, and just about everything else who advise and inform what decisions should or should not be made and why.Outlander

    I agree...advice from advisors is a must. BUT...one must choose one's advisors...and that is a significant project. (One our current president has made a sewer.)

    But a lot of what you said there is conjecture...and rather pessimistic, negative conjecture. I know LOTS of politicians...most on the local level, but I've had a former governor of my state (New Jersey) mention, during a radio interview, some op ed pieces he had read of mine. I've had lengthy conversations with former senator Bill Bradley and the late Senator Frank Lautenberg.

    For the most part, they are dedicated people doing their very best to run their communities as efficient as possible...and to make the community and state as pleasant as they can.

    But politicians, as I said earlier, have to deal with very diverse, and often polar, perspectives of what the people desire from government. A politician (a mayor or senator, for instance) is not just the mayor or senator for the people who voted for him/her...but is the mayor or senator for ALL the people.

    Not an easy job...and the constant disparagement I see sent their way in these forums sickens me. That's why I asked that question.

    For the record, very few people have ever tried to answer it with purpose.
  • Xtrix
    817
    Possibly you don't recognize that what used to be the Republican party now is in and part of the Democrat party.tim wood

    Sure, there's been a rightward shift for years. Democrats are now "moderate republicans," and what's called republican is now pure neoliberal with, at least after 2011 and the Tea Party influence, a touch of utter craziness. Its result is this surreal state we're living it with Trump as president.
  • StreetlightX
    5.3k
    Current news: old white segregationist declares right to decide who is and is not black, depending on how much they support him. Incidentally, this is identity politics at it's finest: thinking that people owe you their vote by virtue of the color of their skin; worse and more absurdly: that the color of one's skin is determined by that vote. This coming from the same guy who once said that poor kids are just as bright as 'white kids'. This is not a gaffe. This is just Biden being the same racist fuckwad he's always been. A loathesome, rapacious cunt of a human being.
  • Frank Apisa
    1.8k


    The two major parties are NOT the same...not at all. There are significant differences.

    America has made a rather steady move to the right. Unfortunately, that is not unique in the world right now...many of the industrialized nations have.

    The kind of freedom enjoyed in "free nations" tends to lead in that direction. The people become libertarian...and start to think that they should have more and more freedom...forgetting that the thing that got them the freedom they have, is the willingness to give up plenty of "freedom" in the interest of society.

    There was a time when the Democratic Party was the party of bigots and the American right wing...and the Republican Party the party of liberals and the left.

    Things changed.

    The GOP has gone off the rails.With all the respect in the world, to suppose the Democrats are just the same thing in disguise is very, very wrongheaded.
  • Xtrix
    817


    I've never once claimed they were the same. The policies are different, and even if by a small degree, in an otherwise powerful country this makes a large impact.
  • Frank Apisa
    1.8k
    Xtrix
    799
    ↪Frank Apisa

    I've never once claimed they were the same. The policies are different, and even if by a small degree, in an otherwise powerful country this makes a large impact.
    Xtrix

    Okay...I included you and Tim because of the conversation you were having.

    It is a dangerous trap to do so...and I think we all ought to remind each other as frequently as possible not to fall into it.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    Indeed. I meant the Republican party has been eaten out, and many Republicans find their home, as it were, in the Democrat party. The Democrat tent is large and can hold - does hold - multitudes. Massachusetts, e.g., is an overwhelmingly Democrat state, but do you suppose that everyone in Massachusetts is a Democrat? Five of six of its most recent governors were Republican.

    I take the two parties to be in essence representatives of two broad and different but both principled and related approaches to solving problems of government - and even on occasion they live up to those standards. Imo Eisenhower did, and was the last Republican to do so. And every Democrat both since and even before, has done so. They're not the same, to be sure. But in some fundamental senses they must be the same - agree?

    I'll go so far as to say that Eisenhower was the last Republican president. You could argue Nixon and Ford, But don't, not worth the effort.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    A loathesome, rapacious cunt of a human being.StreetlightX
    Tourette's, Streetlight? That or make your case. Presumably these are comparatives - unless you mean them to apply to humanity in general. How is Biden, then, loathsome? A fuckwad? Rapacious? A rapacious cunt?

    Given that you're manifestly a smart guy, there really is no excuse for this language, unless its true. Make it true, or think more, or maybe drink less, before you post.
  • StreetlightX
    5.3k
    Presumably you're not across Biden's latest bit of verbal scatology. Par for the course given that you're manifestly exactly as you come across.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." Is that it? Or is it something else?
  • StreetlightX
    5.3k
    I wouldn't worry about it Tim, I don't want you to exceed your allocated mental capacity over this.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    Your language is/was inappropriate. Mainly because it's useless and destructive. And we see that when challenged, you squirt away like a squeezed wet watermelon seed. The issue is your language. You've been challenged on it. But can you face the challenge? Or do we just observe your backside growing smaller in the distance.
  • StreetlightX
    5.3k
    Get over yourself you ratchet internet rando.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    Invective challenged and a coward! What is your problem? You use harsh language on Biden. Make your case.
    This is just Biden being the same racist fuckwad he's always been. A loathesome, rapacious cunt of a human beingStreetlightX
    This is you. What's the substance.
  • Outlander
    138


    Eh, words are words. Free speech. Lets you know the person is being genuine. Usually. Can imply some sort of intense displeasure if used abnormally which an empath would find upsetting. Not to be unexpected I guess. Politics can bring out the worst in us all. A farcry from other things though..

    So apparently the guy has a few "memes" going on (so does Trump, fullblown allegations rather) of 'rapacious' activity or demeanor. Prolonged touching, sniffing hair, I dunno just what I've seen. Not... absolutely incriminating of anything just.. yeah if someone even related to let's pretend I have kids were doing that I'd be like.. yeah could you not do that so much. Lol.

    I can see how a white man in a debate with the only other likely choice being another white man saying "you're supposed to vote for me because you're black" can be a bit distasteful. Just imagine if things were reversed. Don't even have to imagine really. Theres places....

    At the same time I do recall an instance in a 2nd amendment thread where I wrote a pretty cool, detailed and frankly logically equal reply and you were like "no. That's wrong". And I was just kinda like. Anyway. Moving on. That "I was raised this way, i seen this and so this is right" kind of doctrine can get kind of annoying. Or, have a "chilling effect" or otherwise be counterproductive to philosophical debate. Then again so can a mod using profanity toward someone. I don't get that vibe here though. Hey, at least they don't use sock accounts to post controversial things like most forums.
  • StreetlightX
    5.3k
    It's like people think Biden just popped into existence a couple of years ago and hasn't been fucking the people he's supposed to represent for four decades. Trump can only aspire to accumulate the same magnitude of blood on his hands as Biden has been lathering on all his life. Not that the former isn't trying, mind you. Still, he's an amateur compared to the decades-long professional people-fucking of Biden. Literally: Biden has been objectively responsible for a larger sum-total of human misery by orders of magnitude more than the current fuckstick in office, which I suppose makes Biden a fuckstick raised by a couple of powers. Arithmetic.

    McConnell is probably one of the few people who might actually give Joe a run for his money, human misery to human misery.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    It's like people think Biden just popped into existence a couple of years ago and hasn't been fucking the people he's supposed to represent for four decades. Trump can only aspire to accumulate the same magnitude of blood on his hands as Biden has been lathering on all his life. Not that the former isn't trying, mind you. Still, he's an amateur compared to the decades-long professional people-fucking of Biden. Literally: Biden has been objectively responsible for a larger sum-total of human misery by orders of magnitude more than the current fuckstick in office, which I suppose makes Biden a fuckstick raised by a couple of powers. Arithmetic.StreetlightX

    All sugar but no meat or potatoes. You're getting - or have been and I'm only now noticing - to be a pocket nos4. Nothing I'd want to be, but each their own.

    You don't like Biden, big whoop. But you have him worse than Trump and co-evil with McConnell. Your language does not match facts. I invite you to reconcile and educate. (But I suspect you won't).

    In any case, try to stay on point, and try to add some substance.
  • tim wood
    4.4k
    Eh, words are words. Free speech.Outlander
    Two distinct understandings of free speech. 1) you can say whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want under whatever circumstances you want. 2) With some restrictions, political speech is to be free of prior restraint and onerous legal consequence. #2 is generally accepted to be about what the founders had in mind. #1 they never had in mind.

    On something called a philosophy forum one supposes that words usually stand for something; that is if something not immediately evident then a substance that supports them that can be called upon and called out for inspection. Some language is appropriate in that endeavor, some isn't and tends instead to be destructive of it - truth being a defense of usage. Some of us apparently would with their invective alone push Biden to some place well right of Attila the Hun. So what's the truth of it?

    And if I said you were wrong about something, it's because I thought you were wrong about that thing. That usually means at the least that one of us is, and maybe both. If you did not agree with my assessment, it was yours to take up the argument.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.