Social WR Lounge 301: LMAO oh look, aren't you special.

[Jack V Savage]

This is just a left wing media talking point and has no basis in reality. Reading left wing media rots your brain. Rable Rable Rable Rable.

See, this is another guy who can't just like read a point, and respond to it. You just kind of sniff around, and if someone is not on your side, you just post about how mad you are at them. If Bald actually cared about getting things right, he'd make an effort to understand the argument and then agree or disagree with the real point.

 

[Lead]

Overly generous to say it's "more nuanced," IMO. These guys seem to think that the proper way to express political disagreement is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a troll and to misrepresent their views.

Look at how I replied to him and how you did. I think my reply has far more chance of leading to an actual discussion and possibly shifting of viewpoints or, at the very least, acknowledging what the real argument is about. Also, we've been over the "dishonesty" thing before which imo is very close to what you are saying above. We have different outlooks here on engagement.

Even in the real world, Democrats are generally fine with proposals to A) make it easier to obtain photo IDs and make voting and registration easier and B) require photo IDs. Republicans never accept those deals because the point of wanting to require a photo ID is defeated, and no one (i.e., no one who is well-informed on the issue) thinks that security is a legitimate issue.

Yea, a ton of real world democrats are fine with voter ID, polling shows that. Voters overall are pretty okay with more access but stick to the need for an ID. The current bill democrats proposed federally (HR1) effectively nullifies state voter ID laws. This is also a bill many democratic pundits call for the nuclear option to get passed through the senate. I think on that fact alone, we can't really say what democratic politicians at a national level are okay with current laws(/proposals) that "B) require IDs" at this point. On every other measurement (mail ins, holiday, early voting, etc), they are in the more favorable spot with what polling shows.

 

[HereticBD]

See, this is another guy who can't just like read a point, and respond to it. You just kind of sniff around, and if someone is not on your side, you just post about how mad you are at them. If Bald actually cared about getting things right, he'd make an effort to understand the argument and then agree or disagree with the real point.

Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Look at how I replied to him and how you did. I think my reply has far more chance of leading to an actual discussion and possibly shifting of viewpoints or, at the very least, acknowledging what the real argument is about. Also, we've been over the "dishonesty" thing before which imo is very close to what you are saying above. We have different outlooks here on engagement.

The point is I don't think there's any chance that you get interesting engagement with these guys because that's not what they're here for. I think you'll see that if someone is really trying, even if I don't think they know what they're talking about, I'll approach it differently. On the particular issue of voter IDs, there was a thread where I patiently explained what the position of people who oppose it is, and you had a handful of people who couldn't get it because they couldn't reach the point of "understand first, disagree later, if necessary." It literally seemed like some kind of comedy bit. Reminded me of this:

Yea, a ton of real world democrats are fine with voter ID, polling shows that. Voters overall are pretty okay with more access but stick to the need for an ID. The current bill democrats proposed federally (HR1) effectively nullifies state voter ID laws. This is also a bill many democratic pundits call for the nuclear option to get passed through the senate. I think on that fact alone, we can't really say what democratic politicians at a national level are okay with current laws(/proposals) that "B) require IDs" at this point. On every other measurement (mail ins, holiday, early voting, etc), they are in the more favorable spot with what polling shows.

I was thinking more of local-level discussions, but I think that we'd see a compromise bill move very quickly if Republicans wanted to require photo IDs but did so in a way that didn't reduce turnout.

 

[Andy Capp]

At my BJJ class we have a man in his 50s who recently started and he’s the most eager student and is making clear progress. Whenever someone tells me it’s too late to do something I’ll refer him.

What was his fitness level at the start though?

 

[Lead]

You know honestly I like seeing more Asian jurists on the bench and I know whoever gets confirmed is going to be liberal so I'm not up in arms about her going on the bench that said she clearly showed poor judgement in signing that letter.

I agree with him temperament is a key characteristic you should look for in a judge. That's actually why I thought Kavanaugh should've been replaced after he started shouting during a senate hearing. He had the perfect opportunity to show that characteristic and blew it and joined in on politicizing the process.

 

[Andy Capp]

I think it's more about unprincipled partisanship, but it's kind of racism-adjacent. The idea behind the voter ID push is (explicitly in many cases) to reduce turnout among non-whites, but the purpose is to help Republicans steal elections. There has been a trend of non-whites moving toward the GOP while educated whites are moving left (the former group isn't moving right as much as right-leaning non-whites are starting to vote GOP more), which could have an interesting impact on that sort of thing going forward.

Fair enough; I'm willing to concede the laws fulfill amore pragmatic anti-democracy, anti-American, wholly partisan purpose, rather than being racist per se. The result is the same.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Lead, here's an example:

I think it's better if you Google that.

My point has been that "don't" and "can't" are not the same, and it's really, really remarkable how difficult it seems to be to get people to think on their feet and understand that fact. Like, I get that before this thread started, a lot of people have read that liberals oppose photo-ID requirements for voting and that a good response is to say that they don't believe that minorities are capable of acquiring photo IDs, but the response to having it pointed out that that's obviously not the argument that anyone makes is cowlike incomprehension followed by a continual repeating of the talking point.

As for the broader issue, I agree it should be a non-issue. We know that in-person voter fraud is stupid, difficult to pull off, and punished extremely harshly, and so basically never occurs. It's a fake issue that sleazy politicians bring up to cheat in elections. BUT it is also ineffective at that (however, part of the reason it's ineffective is that people make a big stink about it, which motivates the very people the laws are designed to reduce turnout among--so if one side whines about it, the other side rationally has to as well).

BTW, another thread where you see a similar udder (heh heh) incomprehension in the face of a challenge to a talking point is the one on the EC. People say "it's a republic, not a democracy" or "mob rule is bad" as if those are arguments against counting everyone's votes equally. But they're arguments (or really just slogans) against having *direct democracy* (where the public votes on policies), not against having people's votes count equally when selecting representatives. No one offering the slogans seems to understand their own argument. They just know what they're supposed to say in that discussion, and then that they're supposed to be mad at people who are thinking.

At some point, you just gotta write people off.

 

[WhiteMousse]

I accept your concession.

Not trying to troll you seriously but is that what that gif means? You post it a lot.

Also who is it? When and why did it become a thing?

 

[WhiteMousse]

Look at how I replied to him and how you did. I think my reply has far more chance of leading to an actual discussion and possibly shifting of viewpoints or, at the very least, acknowledging what the real argument is about. Also, we've been over the "dishonesty" thing before which imo is very close to what you are saying above. We have different outlooks here on engagement.


Yea, a ton of real world democrats are fine with voter ID, polling shows that. Voters overall are pretty okay with more access but stick to the need for an ID. The current bill democrats proposed federally (HR1) effectively nullifies state voter ID laws. This is also a bill many democratic pundits call for the nuclear option to get passed through the senate. I think on that fact alone, we can't really say what democratic politicians at a national level are okay with current laws(/proposals) that "B) require IDs" at this point. On every other measurement (mail ins, holiday, early voting, etc), they are in the more favorable spot with what polling shows.

This discussion involves people I care about on different sides, and I'm not privy to the entire context. But I feel like I should say this--- Jack disagrees with me on a number of things, and yet always points it out in a respectful manner. I'm not very bright and I'm positive he's had ample opportunity to hammer or just take advantage of that, and he never does.

 

[Lead]

The point is I don't think there's any chance that you get interesting engagement with these guys because that's not what they're here for. I think you'll see that if someone is really trying, even if I don't think they know what they're talking about, I'll approach it differently. On the particular issue of voter IDs, there was a thread where I patiently explained what the position of people who oppose it is, and you had a handful of people who couldn't get it because they couldn't reach the point of "understand first, disagree later, if necessary." It literally seemed like some kind of comedy bit. Reminded me of this:

I agree most people don't even get to the point of understanding.

I was thinking more of local-level discussions, but I think that we'd see a compromise bill move very quickly if Republicans wanted to require photo IDs but did so in a way that didn't reduce turnout.

One could hope. Manchin's amendment seems like it might do that. I haven't seen language but it looks like it moves it back to at least non-photo ID. Not sure I'd agree with it all but it's a far better attempt at getting 60 votes than the original HR1.

 

[Lead]

@Lead, here's an example:

At some point, you just gotta write people off.

I definitely write people off. I just do so by never really engaging them any longer until I convince myself maybe they do want a real discussion. I post a lot less though so that could explain the difference.

This discussion involves people I care about on different sides, and I'm not privy to the entire context. But I feel like I should say this--- Jack disagrees with me on a number of things, and yet always points it out in a respectful manner. I'm not very bright and I'm positive he's had ample opportunity to hammer or just take advantage of that, and he never does.

My comment isn't meant to say Jack can't have a good political discussion (without a doubt he does so and often) and I believe he's always been respectful with me.

 

[WhiteMousse]

I definitely write people off. I just do so by never really engaging them any longer until I convince myself maybe they do want a real discussion. I post a lot less though so that could explain the difference.



My comment isn't meant to say Jack can't have a good political discussion (without a doubt he does so and often) and I believe he's always been respectful with me.

No you need to apologize right now

 

[Lead]

No you need to apologize right now

 

[UFCIsNOTRigged]

Well there’s also the “zone of death” in Yellowstone and those 2 women who were murdered in Utah less than 2 blocks from where they were staying.

So folks are theorizing the boyfriend drove her to the "zone of death" and then murdered her?

Or are they thinking a serial killer might have murdered her and those women 2 blocks away?

The fact the boyfriends family hired a private attorney already and that attorney is going on television saying he did not do anything violent and that it was upon his (the lawyers) advice that the boyfriend has not talked to police makes it pretty clear that he did not murder her. If he had, he would have flown to any other country in the world in the 10 days between when he arrived home in FL and when she was reported missing.

It is a very sad story, but the media is playing games with the words of sobbing parents desperate to find their little girl, this really does not appear to be a case of intimate partner violence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This discussion involves people I care about on different sides, and I'm not privy to the entire context. But I feel like I should say this--- Jack disagrees with me on a number of things, and yet always points it out in a respectful manner. I'm not very bright and I'm positive he's had ample opportunity to hammer or just take advantage of that, and he never does.

Thanks, and don't sell yourself short. There are lots of posters who I might have disagreements with (big or small) but I believe they're really thinking and engaging in an earnest way ("earnest" in the sense of being sincere--could be light-hearted). Denter is another one. But then there are people who are just here to spam talking points and spew hatred at the outgroup, as they see it.

I agree most people don't even get to the point of understanding.

Yeah, and you can't get anywhere with people like that. They want to disagree with what Breitbart or Fox tells them liberals believe rather than what the fellow in front of them is really saying.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Also, we've been over the "dishonesty" thing before which imo is very close to what you are saying above. We have different outlooks here on engagement.

As I recall, a search I conducted for usage of "bad faith" yielded quite a few hits for a couple posters.

Almost as if it was their stock accusation when disagreeing with someone they didn't particularly care for.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As I recall, a search I conducted for usage of "bad faith" yielded quite a few hits for a couple posters.

Almost as if it was their stock accusation when disagreeing with someone they didn't particularly care for.

I don't think you'll see anyone here who is more willing to engage in serious arguments if that's what someone wants than me. While a lot of you just spew talking points and then make vague accusations of dishonesty or trolling at people who disagree with you. Bald was literally defending the practice of derailing threads about Biden's policies with "dur, Fox told me he's senile."

 

[Lead]

As I recall, a search I conducted for usage of "bad faith" yielded quite a few hits for a couple posters.

Almost as if it was their stock accusation when disagreeing with someone they didn't particularly care for.

I don’t know if it’s picked up or has always been around but it’s in certain groups of journalism where I see it used frequently. I think there are times for it but the problem becomes it can be used liberally and prevent a potential conversation from going somewhere and excuse sticking to a level of ad hominems (“you’re a liar”, “no, u”). I just think there’s so many ways a conversation can get off track and this specific thing does more bad than good.

 

[Mr Holmes]

What ever happened to @good faith poster?