Author Topic: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)  (Read 103257 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1855 on: January 19, 2021, 04:09:51 PM »
Instead of rejecting these people - the people who believe in a shadow cabal that renders their elections useless as well as the people that believe the rich are merely a bankroll to entitlement and social welfare - we need to hear them, and prudently incorporate those aspects of the "opinion" that make us better.  Qanon on it's face is loony, but to the extent we can incorporate more transparency, more cooperation into our government, how is that a bad thing?   The democratic socialists are (in my view) loony, but to the extent we can incorporate more programs that have broad appeal rather than catering to a class warfare metrics, how is that a bad thing?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Stadler.  I appreciate it, and agree with a lot of what you're saying.  That being said, at the risk of sounding dismissive (I don't mean to be), I'm still not sure if I'm following you correctly. 

It seems to me that your starting position was that opinions shouldn't matter, and your ending position was that we need to accommodate all opinions, or at least consider them and incorporate them into a consensus or compromise.  While I understand some of the logic, I still don't really know how to reconcile those two points.  Through the lens of this post, I'm not sure how to interpret your earlier post, about the importance of acknowledging that opinions don't matter. 

Focusing on this most recent post alone, I like the basic principle of hearing opinions and incorporating the aspects that make us better.  However, as an addendum, I think it is probably also prudent to reject the aspects that harm us.  Before I move on, out of curiosity, would you agree with me on that addendum?

I'm trying very hard not to resort to those tactics that I tend to push back on.    I don't see what I wrote as being inconsistent, so whatever I can do to show you why, I'll try to do.

When I say "opinions don't matter", what I mean is, "opinions" are not gospel, they are not the fuel that drives the fire, they are the by product of - as we talk about in the other thread - the hard work that goes into being an informed, educated, aware person.  They aren't the end of the process; they are the starting point.  It's why I abhor the phrase "my truth".  There is no "my truth"; there is only truth.   That phrase has elevated "opinion" to the level of fact at that point, and I reject that. 

When I say we have to consider all opinions, what I mean is, we have to respect where each of us is in that process.  As we move through, and build facts that we are aware of (we can't, as humans, know EVERYTHING) we're still not going to always get to "yes".   Some issues ought to be resolvable, but how do you resolve something like "abortion"?   What do you value?  I value personal choice and "freewill" (in quotes because that's another conversation; suffice that I mean personal autonomy).  Someone else can value something different.  For me, even though I morally side with pro-life point of view, at least in most circumstances, it's absolutely NOT my place to tell a woman who is of age, who is of appropriate mental capacity, what decision she can or cannot make.  Even morally I can't force my morals on her.  We've got to move away from this tendency to take leaps.  Just because I FEEL like killing someone is bad; that does NOT make someone who is pro-death penalty an insane, unhinged Nazi.   

I thought I explained this with the examples I gave of "opinions"; "opinion" is a broad category of ideas.  I'm primarily talking about moving away from the "because I feel it, everyone should be beholden to that and if not, you deserve anything you get in terms of ad hominem assaults" and move toward "let's put our points of view on the table, talk them through honestly, share facts we don't all have, and arrive at a position that either we can all live with, or that causes us all a reasonably small amount of pain.

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4866
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1856 on: January 19, 2021, 05:42:29 PM »
I don't see what I wrote as being inconsistent, so whatever I can do to show you why, I'll try to do.

I appreciate that.  I apologize if my lack of understanding caused any frustration; I think I was just getting too caught up on some of the verbiage.  Thank you, sincerely, for clarifying. 

I do think I understand where you're coming from now.  And I largely agree.  I certainly understand your frustration with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. 

For me, the big challenge in finding a way to take the lead on being less stubborn than the people who hold opposing viewpoints.  As it is, you have a lot of people completely entrenched on both sides, and anyone who tries to reach for compromise is generally struck down.  You've had people call you racist, and so have I.  I've also been blocked on Facebook and called a sheep for sharing a fact-checking article about QAnon.  Hell, I got blocked on Facebook for pointing out that a website was satire.  And this sort of ties into the last paragraph from my last post - I understand the value of examining a perspective and assimilating the pieces that work, but I think it's also important to reject the pieces that don't work, because I don't want those pieces to be normalized.  If someone tells me that they support Trump because he's trying to expose the DemonRat pedophile ring, they haven't given me much to assimilate.  Sometimes it feels impossible to find a balance between rejecting the nonsense and accepting the perspective that led to the nonsense. 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28089
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1857 on: January 20, 2021, 07:11:53 AM »
I don't see what I wrote as being inconsistent, so whatever I can do to show you why, I'll try to do.

I appreciate that.  I apologize if my lack of understanding caused any frustration; I think I was just getting too caught up on some of the verbiage.  Thank you, sincerely, for clarifying. 

I do think I understand where you're coming from now.  And I largely agree.  I certainly understand your frustration with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. 

For me, the big challenge in finding a way to take the lead on being less stubborn than the people who hold opposing viewpoints.  As it is, you have a lot of people completely entrenched on both sides, and anyone who tries to reach for compromise is generally struck down.  You've had people call you racist, and so have I.  I've also been blocked on Facebook and called a sheep for sharing a fact-checking article about QAnon.  Hell, I got blocked on Facebook for pointing out that a website was satire.  And this sort of ties into the last paragraph from my last post - I understand the value of examining a perspective and assimilating the pieces that work, but I think it's also important to reject the pieces that don't work, because I don't want those pieces to be normalized.  If someone tells me that they support Trump because he's trying to expose the DemonRat pedophile ring, they haven't given me much to assimilate.  Sometimes it feels impossible to find a balance between rejecting the nonsense and accepting the perspective that led to the nonsense.

My favorite was being called a "bot" every time I didn't goosestep with the popular opinion.   I don't do it much anymore, since I've ditched Quora and I just don't want to be that pedantic with people here who I consider friends, but I used to respond to posts that would refer to "the orange guy" or "Dump" or whatever his German ancestors used with "who is that?  Is he someone we should know about?"   Even something as trivial as that is divisive; it's inherently undermining the discourse, because it puts any response on the defensive. It sends the message to potential responders that "if I don't even have the decency to type the correct letters for the guy's name, I'm CERTAINLY am not going to give your point of view any effort!"   I know, I know there are rationalizations; there are ALWAYS rationalizations, and that goes back to the importance of opinions:  if you have to rationalize your opinion so strenuously, maybe it's time to give that opinion a rethink.  Doesn't mean you change it, but maybe just give it some mirror time to see if it's helping or hurting the bigger picture, or just making you feel better.

Notice something:  I NEVER refer to politicians by anything but their name.  I don't even short-hand "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" to "AOC".  Go back and look at my posts over the last couple years; you won't find ONE "AOC" anywhere in the bunch.  Sometimes I'll play along to the crowd here if there's a chance that my position might be twisted to mean something I don't intend, but as a general rule I refer to politicians by name, if not out of respect for them, then respect for people that I may not see eye-to-eye with.  I disagree with her, I believe her to be the paradigm of what I mean when I say "we're going to get another Trump, just way better at it" but I'm not succumbing to the temptation; she STILL deserves some level of human decency, even if it's a mindset to keep myself open to OTHER, more cogent positions by others that I still disagree with but respect more.

EDIT:  I never answered your other question; of COURSE you can reject things that don't fly.  I don't have to keep going back to the well to reassess whether Hillary Clinton really IS a satanic pedophile; but this goes hand-in-hand with the moral sanctimony; that doesn't mean I reject EVERYTHING about either Hillary Clinton or those that oppose her.  She's not any better, or more suited to lead because SOME minority of the population has delusions about her.   Likewise with Trump; that he THINK he can "grab pussy", or can't be honest about even the most basic of things, does NOT mean that EVERYTHING is wrong.  His laissez-fairre economic policy is one I think is good for the country and the economy; we've got to stop saddling corporations with every feel-good initiative we come up with.  Why corporations are encumbered with delivering us healthcare is beyond me.   WTF?   Why corporations are the burden-bearers on global warming is beyond me.   Why corporations are being forced to be moral and identity-politics police officers is beyond me.  They should focus on what they do; making phones, making cars, selling airline tickets, whatever, and EMPLOYING PEOPLE.  That's not to say they don't have a part in these things - they should have pollution guidelines, for example - but the burden of our nation should not be solely on the backs of our corporations; it's hindering their real purpose, to give us jobs to allow us to realize our goals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 07:19:30 AM by Stadler »

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 2194
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1858 on: January 20, 2021, 11:24:26 AM »
The former occupant's Twitter account has been frozen for weeks.  How 'bout the same with this thread?
'Discretionary posting is the better part of valor.'  Falstaff

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34847
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1859 on: January 20, 2021, 11:57:29 AM »
:lokked:
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27759
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1860 on: January 20, 2021, 12:02:43 PM »
Seems like a good idea, lock it up and send this thread to Trump's future library  :lol

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #1861 on: January 20, 2021, 12:29:33 PM »
In b4 teh lock.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman