Author Topic: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?  (Read 401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13546
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« on: November 06, 2019, 10:03:09 AM »
I heard a radio personality yesterday bring up that he thinks the United States is in a Civil 'cold' War.....and I kind of agree with him. Especially politically, the way 'we' treat those with opposing views....the vitriol and for the lack of a better term...hate....that we unleash on one another if you don't think the way we do it does seem to be a bit 'war' like.

The way our decency has devolved to treating those who don't share our opinions like they are the 'enemy' is heartbreaking. There really isn't a common decency towards one another anymore in general. I don't know that the citizenry of this country has ever been this divided....even during the Civil War.

I don't know, I thought this might be worth discussion....thoughts?
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28951
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2019, 10:04:59 AM »
I agree, which is good, cause if I didn’t, I’d have to hate you.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Kattelox

  • Son of a Shepherd and Head of Urban Rangers
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10307
  • Filthy animals do not belong in Rolf's shed!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2019, 10:13:06 AM »
I've been of this mentality for a few years. I think so. If we're not, we're on the edge.

The mentality of 'I disagree with you on this one thing, therefore I'm just going to ridicule and mock you and disregard everything you have to say, and call you the worst things imaginable' is toxic and spreading like wildfire throughout this country. Nuance? No more. Respect, even if you disagree vehemently on an issue with someone? Gone. Listening to the other side and having a civil discussion about deeply complex social and political issues? Out the window. You add the Internet and the ability for anyone and everyone to go find their own little subcommunities to reinforce their beliefs and actions and you have yourself a stew of toxicity.

This morning I was reading the comments section on a fairly popular site and the amount of people who are 100% A-OK with dismissing people with sarcastic, mocking statements and being unwilling to have a civil conversation with people who disagree with them is frightening. It seems to be growing more every day. The sick irony is that most of these people I'm willing to bet are very liberal and wanting the world to accept their views of tolerance, but when people disagree with them, or they see something they disapprove of, they lash out with intense caustic rhetoric that completely contradicts what they wish to see from the rest of the world.

Socially, politically, our country is highly divided and the toxicity towards each side appears to be growing daily. The civil 'cold' war as it were is that of ideology and the split is not clean; it is rural America vs. urban America, liberal mentalities vs. conservative mentalities. I hate it. I hate the lack of nuance, the lack of civility, the lack of desire to educate and learn and listen to each other. The goal for most people seems to be no greater than mockery and dismissal, with no desire for growth or cooperation.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki
“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” - Bilbo Baggins

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21534
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2019, 10:13:38 AM »
I honestly don't think we're much different than we've ever been, we just have digital records and social platforms to retain and amplify our hatred.

Maybe things were a little different during the world wars when we all agreed to hate foreigners more, but hate was still there. I think it's always been there. From our most basic settlements to the dozens of empires that have come and gone, humans always seem to have this need to hate someone/something, even if they don't want to admit it. I think it's a survival tactic that we are still editing out of our genome.   

Quote
I don't know that the citizenry of this country has ever been this divided....even during the Civil War.


I don't know if that can really be said. I mean, back then, assuming it even made it there, it'd take weeks to get your message of hate across state lines. I'd bet that if Twitter was around in it's current capacity back then, the vitriol would have been exactly the same. It's an interesting thought experiment. What would Twitter have looked like if slaves and slave owners had access to camera phones and social media?

 

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13546
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2019, 10:13:46 AM »
I agree, which is good, cause if I didn’t, I’d have to hate you.

 :lol
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13546
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2019, 10:19:58 AM »
I think the technology is what has destroyed the nuance that Katt speaks to. Because, I happen to have two guys I consider to be close buddies who are both Athiests and very liberal. One is a neighbor and one is the partner of one of my wife's good friends.

When we're together we have some of the best debates/conversations that literally last hours. Always respectful and never a raised voice. Yet, it seems near impossible to carry on that 'conversation' online. When you more or less take the individual out of it as technology seems to do.....the 'conversations' turn toxic in a heartbeat.


Interesting thought experiment Brian. That would be something. And, I can see your point about there was just no way to quickly 'spread' your voice back then.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22711
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2019, 10:49:45 AM »
I don't know as hatred was really a component of the civil war. I gather most people on both sides regretted what was happening. Both saw it as a necessary evil. People nowadays view their opposites as, at best, ignorant and misguided fools, and at worst savages looking to destroy civilization.  And while there was an existential component from the South's point of view, the goal was entirely different. Neither side wanted to be rid of the other. One wanted independence and the other wanted unity under specific terms. Coexistence was the aim of both. I don't think either side in today's struggle wants to coexist, and while there was regret in the US Civil War, there would be glee in a modern equivalent. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2019, 12:05:57 PM »
It's funny.  I know "Quora" is a four letter word here, but it's interesting in terms of taking a pulse of a certain sector of our electorate.  I've taken lately - last six months or so? - to taking an almost extreme moderate position there.  There's a LOT of "tRump" and "T-rump" and "Boy King" and "The Orange One" and on and on... and I will often point out the divisive nature of that kind of discourse.  I will make clear I'm not a Trump guy, I'll make clear who I voted for (and who I might vote for in 2020), and yet... I've been called "Ivan", "Comrade", "Russian bot" and worse, more times than I can count.   I'm not suggesting that the Right is any better, that's not what this is about.  It's about the general tenor of the conversations that I experience.  It's almost impossible to avoid the snarky, judgemental nature that's permeating most of the conversations I see regarding politics.

And it defies logic; why would ANYONE expect that two parties of fairly rigid ideology would adequately and completely cover 100% of 325 million people?  Why can't I disagree with Trump's discourse AND magically making $20 trillion in student debt disappear?  Why can't I agree with Trump's removal of the US from Paris AND still agree with science on climate change?   

The interesting thing?  The divisiveness is counter-productive; more and more research is showing that the rejection of people is perhaps a cause of some of the tensions - violence, mass murder - that we're seeing.  In other words, rather than responding to the extremism on both sides with "ostracision", perhaps the extremism is actually caused/reinforced by their feelings of ostracision to begin with. 

And I'm sorry to be an opportunist here, but this was an important part of my comments about CNN (and Fox.  God forbid I don't make it clear that I'm including "Fox" in here, even though I've noted many times that I don't even count their evening talking heads as "journalism").   It's one thing if you have some fat know-it-all in Connecticut pontificating and refusing to see reason - we can't force people to be civil on a case-by-case basis - but it's another when the general, supposedly objective news outlets are ALSO reducing this to that level.   I don't hear the really childish "T-Rump" stuff from CNN, but there is CLEARLY no grey area on that news station. There's no "allegedly" in front of ANY of Trump's actions; he's fucking guilty and the world is divided into "those that agree" and "those that are delusional kiss-asses".   And it's just NOT that clear*. 



*  The "quid pro quo" thing especially drives me absolutely bat-shit crazy, in terms of it's value as evidence; it's like saying "OJ has a knife.  He's guilty."  There are a few more steps to go through, my friends!

Offline Nekov

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9876
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2019, 12:02:21 PM »
When we're together we have some of the best debates/conversations that literally last hours. Always respectful and never a raised voice. Yet, it seems near impossible to carry on that 'conversation' online. When you more or less take the individual out of it as technology seems to do.....the 'conversations' turn toxic in a heartbeat.

I've expressed this in another thread. It is far easier to be articulate and express a point of view with rich arguments when you are speaking than on the internet. It is a hassle to write long text messages, twitter doesn't really let you express for long unless you do a thread, and more often than not you'll get a TLDR when you actually do (It happens to me a lot when I come into the political side of the forum).
While technology has enhanced our communication in one aspect, it has also made it a lot worse in another.

As to the topic itself, I think Chino is right. Things have been like this for a long time but we are exposed to more opinions than we used too. You should also consider that people feel more comfortable expressing these extreme opinions in front of a computer screen than face to face.
When Ginobili gets hot, I get hot in my pants. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2019, 12:18:24 PM »
As to the topic itself, I think Chino is right. Things have been like this for a long time but we are exposed to more opinions than we used too. You should also consider that people feel more comfortable expressing these extreme opinions in front of a computer screen than face to face.

There's still that aspect of truth, though.  I don't mean "Trump's Fake News" truth, or birther shit, or anything like that, I just mean simple unadulterated truths.  Whether it's "I'm in favor of gay marriage" or "we should abolish the commercial marketplace in it's entirety", one still has to adhere to the truths as we know them.   We still have to adhere to the laws as we've enacted them.  We still have to acknowledge we are but one of 325 MILLION people, all with different viewpoints, each with equal weight regardless of what we think of them.  The only thing we can point to to balance that are the truths we know as we know them, and the laws of this nation. 

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21534
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2019, 12:32:08 PM »
As to the topic itself, I think Chino is right. Things have been like this for a long time but we are exposed to more opinions than we used too. You should also consider that people feel more comfortable expressing these extreme opinions in front of a computer screen than face to face.

There's still that aspect of truth, though.  I don't mean "Trump's Fake News" truth, or birther shit, or anything like that, I just mean simple unadulterated truths.  Whether it's "I'm in favor of gay marriage" or "we should abolish the commercial marketplace in it's entirety", one still has to adhere to the truths as we know them.   We still have to adhere to the laws as we've enacted them.  We still have to acknowledge we are but one of 325 MILLION people, all with different viewpoints, each with equal weight regardless of what we think of them.  The only thing we can point to to balance that are the truths we know as we know them, and the laws of this nation.

The president doesn't like windmills because the noise they produce causes cancer. We shouldn't be weighing statements like that at all, let alone weigh it equally.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2019, 02:44:25 PM »
As to the topic itself, I think Chino is right. Things have been like this for a long time but we are exposed to more opinions than we used too. You should also consider that people feel more comfortable expressing these extreme opinions in front of a computer screen than face to face.

There's still that aspect of truth, though.  I don't mean "Trump's Fake News" truth, or birther shit, or anything like that, I just mean simple unadulterated truths.  Whether it's "I'm in favor of gay marriage" or "we should abolish the commercial marketplace in it's entirety", one still has to adhere to the truths as we know them.   We still have to adhere to the laws as we've enacted them.  We still have to acknowledge we are but one of 325 MILLION people, all with different viewpoints, each with equal weight regardless of what we think of them.  The only thing we can point to to balance that are the truths we know as we know them, and the laws of this nation.

The president doesn't like windmills because the noise they produce causes cancer. We shouldn't be weighing statements like that at all, let alone weigh it equally.

Reminds me of this Dara O'Briain clip:

"But there's a kind of a notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid - my arse!"   :laugh:

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

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22711
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2019, 03:51:33 PM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 614
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2019, 03:56:09 PM »
Everybody can absolutely voice every idea or opinion they want.  Nobdy has to listen though, and it doesn't mean there won't be a reply you don't like. And yeah that cuts both ways obviously.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 04:04:58 PM by XeRocks81 »

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2019, 03:58:33 PM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2019, 04:21:59 PM »
Well, I agree with El Barto 100% (and that applies to anything; I'd rather KNOW someone is a racist, than be deceived and not be able to make an informed decision).   But that's not really my point (and I tried to cover that with the "truths we know as we know them").  Obviously, we don't get our own facts; if the data says that windmills do not cause cancer, then certainly there's a discussion to be had.  I'm talking more ideologically.   I was specifically  talking about the judgment of calling someone unpatriotic if they oppose military funding, or calling someone deplorable if they don't sufficiently toe the identity politics line.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2019, 04:26:09 PM »
Everybody can absolutely voice every idea or opinion they want.  Nobdy has to listen though, and it doesn't mean there won't be a reply you don't like. And yeah that cuts both ways obviously.

But increasingly, it's not cutting both ways, and there's a danger when the "reply you don't like" is greatly out of proportion to the underlying idea/voice. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2019, 06:10:28 PM »
Well, I agree with El Barto 100% (and that applies to anything; I'd rather KNOW someone is a racist, than be deceived and not be able to make an informed decision).   But that's not really my point (and I tried to cover that with the "truths we know as we know them").  Obviously, we don't get our own facts; if the data says that windmills do not cause cancer, then certainly there's a discussion to be had.  I'm talking more ideologically.   I was specifically  talking about the judgment of calling someone unpatriotic if they oppose military funding, or calling someone deplorable if they don't sufficiently toe the identity politics line.

Deplorable is so 2016.  The correct insult in 2019 is "human scum."  Please try to keep up.   ;)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2019, 09:33:10 PM »
Well, I agree with El Barto 100% (and that applies to anything; I'd rather KNOW someone is a racist, than be deceived and not be able to make an informed decision).   But that's not really my point (and I tried to cover that with the "truths we know as we know them").  Obviously, we don't get our own facts; if the data says that windmills do not cause cancer, then certainly there's a discussion to be had.  I'm talking more ideologically.   I was specifically  talking about the judgment of calling someone unpatriotic if they oppose military funding, or calling someone deplorable if they don't sufficiently toe the identity politics line.

Deplorable is so 2016.  The correct insult in 2019 is "human scum."  Please try to keep up.   ;)

OK, boomer.  :)

(I'm kidding; I just learned what that was a couple days ago.)

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21534
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2019, 06:00:57 AM »
Well, I agree with El Barto 100% (and that applies to anything; I'd rather KNOW someone is a racist, than be deceived and not be able to make an informed decision).   But that's not really my point (and I tried to cover that with the "truths we know as we know them").  Obviously, we don't get our own facts; if the data says that windmills do not cause cancer, then certainly there's a discussion to be had.  I'm talking more ideologically.   I was specifically  talking about the judgment of calling someone unpatriotic if they oppose military funding, or calling someone deplorable if they don't sufficiently toe the identity politics line.

Deplorable is so 2016.  The correct insult in 2019 is "human scum."  Please try to keep up.   ;)

OK, boomer.  :)

(I'm kidding; I just learned what that was a couple days ago.)

I can't remember the last internet fad I hated as much as I hate "okay boomer"

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2019, 06:36:15 AM »
Me too.   For the love of god, me too.  It's everything I despise about political discourse wrapped up in an obnoxious, snarky bow.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22711
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2019, 08:06:36 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 614
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2019, 08:10:11 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

but isn’t that the whole problem in a nutshell? That is not going to happen, ever. 

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28951
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2019, 08:15:09 AM »
I think, for me, the issue isn't with having a debate and hearing all sides, it's the implications and real life cosequences of having that debate.

If, for argument's sake, the Flat Earther's came and said WE NEED TO DEBATE THIS! And that was it? Cool, do what you gotta do.

But what if all flights, boats, etc. had to be indeffinetly grounded every time one of them wanted to debate? Because, if they're right, which we are entertaining as equally as anything else here, then all of those lives in those flights and boats are in danger.

Want to debate whether or not homosexuals are part of nature? Have at it.

Want to make sure gays and lesbians can't marry, have kids, get jobs or whatever else until you've sufficiently solved that debate? We have an issue there.

So my, and I think a lot of peoples' problems are with the consequences of these debates sometimes, not the actual debates. Me and Stadler talking in a bar has no consequences. Gary and his friends sitting around a bon fire talking about Trump v. Bill has no consequences. Suspending the freedoms/liberties/whatevers of entire sections of the populace because every single opinion is equally valid and deserves the days/weeks/months/years necessary to formally debate has consequences that I do not support.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2019, 08:45:15 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

But that's the point.  They absolutely DO come forward with "proof" of their theory.  The problem is that their "proof" is nonsense.  (Check out their website if you don't believe me.)  And nothing - NOTHING - you can say to them will sway them.  It's the same with Trump.  You can literally show him video footage of himself saying one thing and he will say he never said it.  Fake news.  Alternative facts.  How do you have a discussion with that?  You don't.  It's impossible.  So why even bother?

And Stadler - while I appreciate your fine attempt at humor with the boomer thing (I hate it too, even though I'm a Gen-Xer) I just want to be sure you have it correct.  Because in the context you just used it, you don't.  Plus you forgot the obligatory photo of an elderly person clutching his chest as if having a heart attack.   :P  Now if I had been waxing nostalgic about the Reagan years, yeah - totally appropriate put down.  But using on someone telling you to keep up with insults of 2019, it doesn't really work.  But hey, thanks for playing.  Boomer.   :laugh:


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2019, 08:47:50 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

but isn’t that the whole problem in a nutshell? That is not going to happen, ever.

See, I don't mind having a decent standard for establishing the terms of a debate, and we can discuss and kick around what it means to "debate" to begin with, but I balk at "that's not going to happen, ever".   There is a burgeoning field of research that - and I'm GROSSLY simplifying here - says the world is basically a virtual reality generator for each of us.  If that's the case, it's VITALLY important that we understand why and how someone is characterizing the world.  There may be deeper merit to that argument that "the world is flat" that we chill with this notion of "that's not going to happen ever".

The discussion of "god" is another one where we hear "that's not going to happen, ever".   I just left a site - and people - I cared for and valued very very much because, in part, one member had this attitude about debate.  "It's not worth discussing".   And I don't think you (generally; I include myself in that "you") get to decide that.  Sure, if they start out with "well, the Bible says..." you are entitled to tune out immediately, or, more preferredly, remind them of the origins of the Bible (Constantinople, 400AD, etc. etc.) and leave it at that.   The point isn't what we debate, it's HOW we debate it.  I'm sorry, unless and until you understand why they got to where they are, I believe it's short-sided and ultimately dangerous to dismiss them as "stupid" or whatever derogation you want to use.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 09:23:13 AM by Stadler »

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 614
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2019, 09:09:20 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

but isn’t that the whole problem in a nutshell? That is not going to happen, ever.

See, I don't mind having a decent standard for establishing the terms of a debate, and we can discuss and kick around what it means to "debate" to begin with, but I balk at "that's not going to happen, ever".   There is a burgeoning field of research that - and I'm GROSSLY simplifying here - says the world is basically a virtual reality generator for each of us.  If that's the case, it's VITALLY important that we understand why and how someone is characterizing the world.  There may be deeper merit to that argument that "the world is flat" that we chill with this notion of "that's not going to happen ever".

The discussion of "god" is another one where we hear "that's not going to happen, ever".   I just left a site and people - I cared for and valued very very much because, in part, one member had this attitude about debate.  "It's not worth discussing".   And I don't think you (generally; I include myself in that "you") get to decide that.  Sure, if they start out with "well, the Bible says..." you are entitled to tune out immediately, or, more preferredly, remind them of the origins of the Bible (Constantinople, 400AD, etc. etc.) and leave it at that.   The point isn't what we debate, it's HOW we debate it.  I'm sorry, unless and until you understand why they got to where they are, I believe it's short-sided and ultimately dangerous to dismiss them as "stupid" or whatever derogation you want to use.

Well a philosophical or spiritual discussion is not the same as a scientific one.  Though I understand they can and should sometimes overlap we shouldn't just throw things against each other in the wrong context

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41296
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2019, 09:13:59 AM »
Me too.   For the love of god, me too.  It's everything I despise about political discourse wrapped up in an obnoxious, snarky bow.
OK boomer.

j/k  I don't believe you actually are a boomer.

So just OK.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2019, 09:22:37 AM »
So my, and I think a lot of peoples' problems are with the consequences of these debates sometimes, not the actual debates. Me and Stadler talking in a bar has no consequences. Gary and his friends sitting around a bon fire talking about Trump v. Bill has no consequences. Suspending the freedoms/liberties/whatevers of entire sections of the populace because every single opinion is equally valid and deserves the days/weeks/months/years necessary to formally debate has consequences that I do not support.

But what about a point in between?  We gladly suspend SOME freedoms based on less than exact or incomplete science (guns come immediately to mind) so it's not like we're pure here.  But we went years redefining what it means to be have a sexual identity, based to a significant degree on the "gay gene" and science, with its ever-expanding knowledge, is backing away from that now.   Legit scientists with no (apparent) agenda are concluding there IS an environmental component to sexuality, and yet there are people (with an apparent agenda) that want to shut that shit right down, because ideas scare people.*

I'm not really interested in debating flat earth, but I can disengage if I want.  What I'm really more interested in is allowing the best and brightest in this world - who realize the limitations of "common sense" and perhaps are not burdened by the constraints of a societal fear - free reign to pursue their muse.  You can't just be "for science" when it goes your way. *


* Both of these comments were in part inspired by this article (there are others if you don't like the NY Times) and specifically this statement:   “I deeply disagree about publishing this,” said Steven Reilly, a geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who is on the steering committee of the institute’s L.G.B.T.Q. affinity group, Out@Broad. “It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued,” he said, adding, “In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don’t live in that world.”

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2019, 09:37:24 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

But that's the point.  They absolutely DO come forward with "proof" of their theory.  The problem is that their "proof" is nonsense.  (Check out their website if you don't believe me.)  And nothing - NOTHING - you can say to them will sway them.  It's the same with Trump.  You can literally show him video footage of himself saying one thing and he will say he never said it.  Fake news.  Alternative facts.  How do you have a discussion with that?  You don't.  It's impossible.  So why even bother?

But I don't want to limit this to just people that we should all just know are "certifiable lunatics" (my words).  I have a friend, who I like and admire very much, who has unequivocally stated that "there's nothing you can tell me that would change my mind on guns".   We talk a lot of things, but I've come to realize that "guns" are not now and never will be on the agenda.  It's almost turning into sport for me now, but I'm in DOUBLE DIGITS the number of times I've been called a "Russian bot" (or the equivalent) because I have the audacity to suggest that perhaps we SHOULD have due process for Trump and not just sever his head in the town square immediately.  Last night in particular was when I pointed out that "quid pro quo" wasn't, in and of itself, enough to show guilt under the FCPA, and that if one wanted Trump to truly be in jail, then the 6th Amendment comes into play (and the whistleblower MAY have to reveal his or her identity). 

We're using "flat eathers" as a stand-in for the arguments we're dismissing, but for every "flat earth" argument there are five or ten that aren't so cut and dry. Guns are one.  The economics of tariffs are another.  Then there are those that straddle the line; in other contexts than the one we're most familiar with, the concept of a candidate for President confirming their Constitutional bona fides is a legit one, regardless of race or gender. 

Quote
And Stadler - while I appreciate your fine attempt at humor with the boomer thing (I hate it too, even though I'm a Gen-Xer) I just want to be sure you have it correct.  Because in the context you just used it, you don't.  Plus you forgot the obligatory photo of an elderly person clutching his chest as if having a heart attack.   :P  Now if I had been waxing nostalgic about the Reagan years, yeah - totally appropriate put down.  But using on someone telling you to keep up with insults of 2019, it doesn't really work.  But hey, thanks for playing.  Boomer.   :laugh:

Well, I just used it as an example of a dismissive, divisive snark-driven argument with zero substance.  You know me well enough at this point that I probably DO have it wrong.  :)    (Though I understand it to mean the dismissal of one who is old and out-of-touch/close-minded by someone who is presumably younger and more hip/open-minded.  It's interesting to me that most of the power of a phrase like that isn't in it's academic merit, or it's precise usage, it's in the context that the person receiving the insult - the Baby Boomer themselves - probably doesn't know what it means.)

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22711
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2019, 09:40:53 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

But that's the point.  They absolutely DO come forward with "proof" of their theory.  The problem is that their "proof" is nonsense.  (Check out their website if you don't believe me.)  And nothing - NOTHING - you can say to them will sway them.  It's the same with Trump.  You can literally show him video footage of himself saying one thing and he will say he never said it.  Fake news.  Alternative facts.  How do you have a discussion with that?  You don't.  It's impossible.  So why even bother?

I'm not suggesting that we're obligated to waste time arguing with the irrational. I'm cautioning against automatically writing off people because of the idea they espouse. Flat-Earthers are pretty silly. That doesn't mean that the next flat-Earther I meet is an idiot or a whackjob. Nor does it mean that he can't put forth some new argument that I'm unfamiliar with. Trump is a good example of this. The guy's a half-witted oaf with no clue what it means to be president. That doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong or delusional. His club membership, in this case Team Trump, will lead to it being dismissed by many, though. I have no idea if the windmill thing was a fictional example or a real thing that he believes. Assuming the latter, it sounds like something he'd buy into, has anybody bothered to look into whatever pseudo-scientific article he got the idea from? Is there a reason he thinks this? The truth is that it's probably nonsense and he's a fool for believing it, but I don't know that. Between my intellectual curiosity and my propensity towards fairness, I'd want to, though.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18520
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2019, 09:49:18 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

but isn’t that the whole problem in a nutshell? That is not going to happen, ever.

See, I don't mind having a decent standard for establishing the terms of a debate, and we can discuss and kick around what it means to "debate" to begin with, but I balk at "that's not going to happen, ever".   There is a burgeoning field of research that - and I'm GROSSLY simplifying here - says the world is basically a virtual reality generator for each of us.  If that's the case, it's VITALLY important that we understand why and how someone is characterizing the world.  There may be deeper merit to that argument that "the world is flat" that we chill with this notion of "that's not going to happen ever".

The discussion of "god" is another one where we hear "that's not going to happen, ever".   I just left a site and people - I cared for and valued very very much because, in part, one member had this attitude about debate.  "It's not worth discussing".   And I don't think you (generally; I include myself in that "you") get to decide that.  Sure, if they start out with "well, the Bible says..." you are entitled to tune out immediately, or, more preferredly, remind them of the origins of the Bible (Constantinople, 400AD, etc. etc.) and leave it at that.   The point isn't what we debate, it's HOW we debate it.  I'm sorry, unless and until you understand why they got to where they are, I believe it's short-sided and ultimately dangerous to dismiss them as "stupid" or whatever derogation you want to use.

Well a philosophical or spiritual discussion is not the same as a scientific one.  Though I understand they can and should sometimes overlap we shouldn't just throw things against each other in the wrong context

I'm not; I don't at all limit "god" to a philosophical discussion.  I have always taken the general approach that our spectrum of "knowledge" has traditionally been filled by a combination of true knowledge and "faith".  In 1 AD, the spectrum was predominantly "faith", as determined by the major religions of the day, with some general, basic science fleshing the rest out.  In the 1600's (roughly) the spectrum moved sharply, so that some was faith, largely driven by the main churches, but much of it was science.   As we got into the 20th century - I'm thinking of Einstein's theory and later work on "the Big Bang" - the spectrum was predominantly science, but with some faith, increasingly less tied to a "church" but still tied to spiritual leanings,  fleshing the rest out.  You don't have to agree with this approach; I'm not forcing it on anyone.  But by saying "well, that's PHILOSOPHICAL and doesn't merit study", you're implicitly forcing YOUR approach on everyone else.

I've had this conversation as well:  there's little if any actual "proof" for a god, a spiritual being, but if a scientist can adhere to the tenets of the scientific method, and wants to pursue the existence of a god, more power to them.  We should not chill that advancement.   We might not have the intellectual and cultural maturity to handle all the answers - see my above post - but we should not be arbitrarily quelling the advancement of knowledge.

EDIT: I'm using more words, but I'm parked pretty close to El Barto on this.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 10:03:38 AM by Stadler »

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 614
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the United States in a Civil "Cold" War?
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2019, 09:56:26 AM »
I have to side with Stadler on that. Just because it's a stupid idea doesn't mean it should be quashed. Trying to do so creates myriad problems, and the reality is that it's easier and better for everybody to let stupid people voice their opinions so that they can be proven false and exposed as imbeciles. And the stupider it is the less time it takes to disprove. Trumps windmill-tilting ideology makes him look stupid. Refusing to even acknowledge it makes him look right.

Ever try to argue with a flat-earther?  Just curious.
Nah, I find them silly. But if one of them came forward with proof of their theory I'd love to see it and would absolutely hear them out.

but isn’t that the whole problem in a nutshell? That is not going to happen, ever.

See, I don't mind having a decent standard for establishing the terms of a debate, and we can discuss and kick around what it means to "debate" to begin with, but I balk at "that's not going to happen, ever".   There is a burgeoning field of research that - and I'm GROSSLY simplifying here - says the world is basically a virtual reality generator for each of us.  If that's the case, it's VITALLY important that we understand why and how someone is characterizing the world.  There may be deeper merit to that argument that "the world is flat" that we chill with this notion of "that's not going to happen ever".

The discussion of "god" is another one where we hear "that's not going to happen, ever".   I just left a site and people - I cared for and valued very very much because, in part, one member had this attitude about debate.  "It's not worth discussing".   And I don't think you (generally; I include myself in that "you") get to decide that.  Sure, if they start out with "well, the Bible says..." you are entitled to tune out immediately, or, more preferredly, remind them of the origins of the Bible (Constantinople, 400AD, etc. etc.) and leave it at that.   The point isn't what we debate, it's HOW we debate it.  I'm sorry, unless and until you understand why they got to where they are, I believe it's short-sided and ultimately dangerous to dismiss them as "stupid" or whatever derogation you want to use.

Well a philosophical or spiritual discussion is not the same as a scientific one.  Though I understand they can and should sometimes overlap we shouldn't just throw things against each other in the wrong context

I'm not; I don't at all limit "god" to a philosophical discussion.  I have always taken the general approach that our spectrum of "knowledge" has traditionally been filled by a combination of true knowledge and "faith".  In 1 AD, the spectrum was predominantly "faith", as determined by the major religions of the day, with some general, basic science fleshing the rest out.  In the 1600's (roughly) the spectrum moved sharply, so that some was faith, largely driven by the main churches, but much of it was science.   As we got into the 20th century - I'm thinking of Einstein's theory and later work on "the Big Bang" - the spectrum was predominantly science, but with some faith, increasingly less tied to a "church" but still tied to spiritual leanings,  fleshing the rest out.  You don't have to agree with this approach; I'm not forcing it on anyone.  But by saying "well, that's PHILOSOPHICAL and doesn't merit study", you're implicitly forcing YOUR approach on everyone else.

I've had this conversation as well:  there's little if any actual "proof" for a god, a spiritual being, but if a scientist can adhere to the tenets of the scientific method, and wants to pursue the existence of a god, more power to them.  We should not chill that advancement.   We might not have the intellectual and cultural maturity to handle all the answers - see my above post - but we should not be arbitrarily quelling the advancement of knowledge.

But again, studying philisophy, religion, spirituality require different context.  I never said they shouldn't be studied, on the contrary.    And I did say it can overlap with science but not mixing everything up willy nilly.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 01:48:03 PM by XeRocks81 »