Why did the intolerant thread go bad and my thoughts on politics

[Justme]

The only issue I saw arising before nI logged off was that there were people who were so self-assured of their stances that they would not even try to test out their theories. This is unconscionable, since I know that they themselves would not like to be treated so. No one would. I used to be a democrat until I found they were more into taking on the causes of so many without even trying to take care of those they already have. I started questioning their reasoning and decided that they were more into bring as many people under the Democratic tent then they were of doing anything about their grievances.

To this day the Democrats are fractured into so many pieces that many of their laws and rulings counter the desires of many who vote for the Democratic ticket.

I used to be a Republican until they started trying to define what it is to being an American by such a rigid standards that many who were already Americans felt they were being strangled.

Now I am what I call a Liberative republicrat, which is fine by me. I do not vote for parties. I vote for people, no matter the party, because the two party system has failed and I think it needs to be abolished. There are two issues I have with this and they are the influence of money and the Idea that one party will never allow the other party to gain any ground with the American public.

All in all these people are using the American public as pawns in a game of power. They are feeding the gullible a mental image of those they oppose and unfortunately there are so many people looking to feel better about themselves that they eagerly except that vision and actively seek to demonize the opposition without even talking to them. I will ask the same question that I asked in the intolerance thread, which is where is this taking us?

If you guys want to talk politics then here's your chance.​

Personally, I think that those people who automatically resort to party rhetoric, talking points and circular arguments should really think about cleaning out their colen because the politician who you are mimicking needs a clean place to shove his hand and turn you into his own personal ventriloquist's dummy. He needs it when he shakes the hand of a contributor he just told you was evil, because he needs their money to get re-elected. Now, who's the dummy?

 

[Steerpike]

A liberative republicrat sounds interesting. I'm an independent as well. In most cases I couldn't care less whether there is a (D) or an (R) in front of a candidates name, or whether they are from some other party entirely. I try to vote based on the individual, and I think the two major parties in the US are corrupt and beholden to special interests, by and large, so I can't really support them.

People are used as pawns, and the worst part of it is how easily people are duped into the very polarized us versus them mentality that ensures their continued use as pawns. The best thing that can happen for corrupt politicians is to get the population so divided up in an us versus them mentality that no one is paying much attention to what is really going on in circles of power. I think the politicians purposefully maintain class and social warfare, and rancor across the political divide, as a way of maintaining power. It is a very effective strategy, and it isn't hard to see that it is pretty easy for them to feed into dehumanizing conceptions among all segments of society, from the uneducated to the well-educated.

EDIT: I should note that in the politically-correct sense, self-conceptions like 'tolerant' or 'progressive' are a way to put oneself on a higher moral plane than those who disagree. Once you do that, you can treat those who disagree in fairly a fairly abhorrent manner and it is OK because you are better than they are. That's why so many self-described tolerant people are really intolerant. Once you are above someone or morally elevated with respect to them, it is easy to rationalize anything you do.

Case in point in the last thread (and this will be my only direct comment on that thread)...we obviously have conservative members of the forums here at Mythic Scribes. The point was made in the last thread by more than one person that people who are politically conservative are inherently (inherently, mind you), hateful by nature of their beliefs. Now, even though this kind of bigoted statement was directed generally against people who frequent this very forum, it was not perceived in any way to be unwarranted or inappropriate by those who hold that view. But when I pointed out that this viewpoint was in itself bigoted, then the people on that side of the argument were...agitated. So think about the mindset a person has to have, and the illusions they have to build around themselves and their own viewpoints, in order to maintain the dichotomy. Broadly categorizing an entire group of people as hateful, ignorant, and so on, is acceptable to people with this mind set, but being called on it somehow goes beyond all bounds.

All I can say is that the human mind is evolutionarily designed to work this way. It is the animal mind that taught our ancestors "us" and "them" and "like" and "not like." It was important to our survival. As thinking, civilized people we should be no more slave to that kind of thinking than to any other aspect of our animal nature.

 

[Jabrosky]

The point was made in the last thread by more than one person that people who are politically conservative are inherently (inherently, mind you), hateful by nature of their beliefs.

I'm sorry, but I cannot let this misrepresentation of your opposition slide by unrefuted.

Here's one of the posts you earlier called "hateful", with emphasis on the parts you evidently glanced over:

I don't disagree that there are bigots and hateful people on the left. Lord knows I know a few. Hell, my husband can use a kick in the shin at dinner parties from time to time. I know they exist, but... lord, this is going to derail us dreadfully, but in for a penny, in for a pound...

I have conservative friends. People who I have shared interests with outside of politics. We both like a certain show, or a certain game. They are very nice people, all in all. I've had many a good D&D session with them. But, no matter how kind, I simply can't see how you can be a conservative and not have some hateful beliefs, even if they are not rooted in any personal hatred. What are the conservative policies?

Pro-life, which is anti-woman. Anti-immigration, which is anti-Latin@. Anti-affirmative action, which is anti-all minority races, though particularly blacks. Pro-death penalty, which is literally a POV you can only have if you are capable of hating someone. Anti-gay marriage, pretty obviously anti-gay. Against pretty much everything that would decrease the boundaries between the rich and the poor, be that in health care, education, or way of life - anti-black, in particular. The simple fact is that most rich people are white and there are a lot more poor black and Latin@ families than there are white ones (and the white ones often live in different neighbourhoods than the minority ones). Pro-guns, another policy I can't imagine supporting without hatred in your heart. Also, has a direct effect on crime in Mexico. Same with anti-drug policies. Their policies on homeland security - anti-Muslim/Arab. Pro-war on terror, mostly rooted in greed and misconceptions, but lord know it's caused a mean streak in the anti-Muslim/Arab department, as well.

Honestly, the only conservative policy that isn't bigoted or easily tied to race is their stance on global warming. That doesn't mean you are hateful, or even necessarily aware of the hatefulness behind the policies you support. Some of them are more institutionalized than personal. But if you vote conservative, you are still voting for hateful, bigoted policies. Invariably. And frankly staying quiet about it doesn't make you in much better than the fringe parts of the demographic who make their views known. What few groups of liberal nuts we have are well and truly nuts. Eco-terrorists and PETA, mainly. They are leftist, but they aren't preaching the actual policies our elected officials are voting in. Even the sweetest conservatives, however, are voting to ban gay marriage and profile Muslims in every airport every time they vote to lower taxes or whatever it is they vote conservative for.

Notice that Ophiucha is not calling conservatives as individual people hateful, only the policies they endorse, and frankly she was calling a spade a spade. Your accusing her of bigotry against conservatives even though she was obviously attacking their opinions rather than their character is even more caricaturing than anything she or I ever typed.

 

[Justme]

The one reason that I use the term Liberative Republicrat is that I think more established labels have all been buried in connotations. It seems to me that most people feel that getting to the center of a quote/unquote Liberal or conservative, would be like digging up a dead horse to see how dead it was. It is more drudgery than finding out what a new label expresses. I know it is still a label but it promotes more questions, which will promote explanations that might just get around the cultured of demonetization that seems to be prevalent in today's world.

Some would call this a dodge, but I would ask them what exactly is it dodging? Is it dodging the honest truth or personal perception. The difference in these two realities might just be too vast for many to attempt to bridge, but to those people I ask this. Is it worth your time to test your version of reality or is it so ingrained that to discover an error in it would be destroy the person who surrounds it?

 

[Steerpike]

Notice that Ophiucha is not calling conservatives as individual people hateful, only the policies they endorse, and frankly she was calling a spade a spade. Your accusing her of bigotry against conservatives even though she was obviously attacking their opinions rather than their character is even more caricaturing than anything she or I ever typed.

That's untrue. Simply a dishonest representation of the discussion based on picking and choosing of sentences from a post instead of reading the discussion as a whole. Even within the post you copied, the sections you chose not to highlight support my point. She says you can't be conservative without having some hateful beliefs, says that you can't be pro-gun without having hate in your heart.

Really, every post you make serves more to make my points for me than my own posts. This is another example of rationalization and the kind of compartmentalized thinking I'm talking about, where the end effect is that you can't even be honest about the contents of a discussion (even with yourself, apparently). Too bad.

 

[Jabrosky]

That's untrue. Simply a dishonest representation of the discussion based on picking and choosing of sentences from a post instead of reading the discussion as a whole. Even within the post you copied, the sections you chose not to highlight support my point. She says you can't be conservative without having some hateful beliefs, says that you can't be pro-gun without having hate in your heart.

Really, every post you make serves more to make my points for me than my own posts. This is another example of rationalization and the kind of compartmentalized thinking I'm talking about, where the end effect is that you can't even be honest about the contents of a discussion (even with yourself, apparently). Too bad.

Here's the key part: she is not calling the conservatives as people hateful. She is talking about their policies.

Let me repeat that: she is not calling the conservatives as people hateful. She is talking about their policies.


Post edited by Chilari to remove insulting language.
Does anyone get it now?

 

[Steerpike]

Is it worth your time to test your version of reality or is it so ingrained that to discover an error in it would be destroy the person who surrounds it?

I think there are various reasons for this. One combination that comes into play is insecurity and ignorance. Insecurities lead people away from scrutinizing their own belief systems, and also from admitting validity of opposing systems (due to the fear that this somehow casts a bad light on their own beliefs). Ignorance ensures that people have only a very surface-level understanding of what they believe or why. If you scratch below that surface, you are threatening because they don't have answers, and then the insecurity kicks in, and so on.

In other cases, but less frequently, I think it is simply dishonesty at work. In still other cases a need to elevate oneself above others (I guess that ties back to insecurity). Ultimately, going back to the first two, people don't like to think and they are easily threatened due to their lack of knowledge or understanding. You don't generally have to look much farther than that.

 

[Justme]

Thank you Jabrosky, but I would ask you how these quotes

But, no matter how kind, I simply can't see how you can be a conservative and not have some hateful beliefs, even if they are not rooted in any personal hatred. What are the conservative policies?

Pro-life, which is anti-woman. Anti-immigration, which is anti-Latin@. Anti-affirmative action, which is anti-all minority races, though particularly blacks. Pro-death penalty, which is literally a POV you can only have if you are capable of hating someone. Anti-gay marriage, pretty obviously anti-gay. Against pretty much everything that would decrease the boundaries between the rich and the poor, be that in health care, education, or way of life - anti-black, in particular.

has anything to do with reality? It seems that this person has already made up his mind on the reasoning behind these peoples oppositions to these and has determined that it is all to do with hatred. This is my exact point, when it comes to perception over truth. This is why the dialog between the two parties have shrunk to nothing. I ask you is this an honest attempt to comunicate between each other or a way to thumb one's nose at the other?

 

[Steerpike]

Here's the key part: she is not calling the conservatives as people hateful. She is talking about their policies.

Let me repeat that: she is not calling the conservatives as people hateful. She is talking about their policies.

Does anyone get it now?

Heh.

No sooner do I make a post than Jabrosky becomes a poster-child in support of my points. Witness, here, insecurity and ignorance.

Next.

Post edited by Chilari to remove insulting language from quoted text.

 

[Steerpike]

Thank you Jabrosky, but I would ask you how these quotes

...


has anything to do with reality?

You are wasting your electronic breath, in my view. I don't think reality enters into it. It is more about trying to position oneself above others and therefore being in a position to cast judgments down upon them. It is the pursuit of small minds, but human society is rampant with those, don't you think?

 

[Jabrosky]

Thank you Jabrosky, but I would ask you how these quote...has anything to do with reality?

Please explain how they can't have anything to do with reality.

 

[Chilari]

My position is that if you feel there is more to be learned from the intolerance discussion, feel free to start it up again, under the proviso that political debate is banned (which should be stated clearly in the first post) and if it reappears the thread will be locked and offending posts deleted.

Thread locked because I specifically said that political debate would not be welcome in continuation of this topic.

Warnings issued to relevant parties.

 

[Black Dragon]

New Policy:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-announcements/3634-no-more-politics.html

Thank you for cooperating.

 

[Reaver]

New Policy:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-announcements/3634-no-more-politics.html

Thank you for cooperating.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this new policy. I freakin' hate politics. And Pod 6.