The (ostensibly) Low Content Thread - Page 29 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

I'm old. Probably not as old as you are, but old. I'm not really 100% about exactly what the kids consider trolling or not. I don't think it necessarily means lying.

Edit: Oh wait, you said something about your age iirc and you're just a punk kid in your early 30s.

It certainly does not mean honest posting. Disingenuous is probably an agreeable characterization.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 12:03 AM

#702

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,077

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

It certainly does not mean honest posting. Disingenuous is probably an agreeable characterization.

Could be, but could just be hostile posting with the intent to upset or ridicule someone imo. That is not necessarily dishonest in any way.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 02:19 AM

#703

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,797

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus999

... obsessed with dividing by race 99.9% of the time...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus999

...

Notice I am not doing that. Because I am representing reality. Not skewing it to confirm my ideological biases.

What's the difference you omitted here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus999

I am going to go out on a big limb that when I brought up the police executing the guy in Arizona lying on the ground begging for his life, you had absolutely nothing to say about him being a victim.

But when it is a guy who has committed double digit violent felonies you will carry water uphill 10 miles to defend him and normalize his behavior.

This is how ideology brainwashes people and makes them completely unable to tell right from wrong.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 05:01 AM

#704

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdemaine

I love being told what I believe and don't believe. It's far easier than generating actual opinions. I seem to believe some pretty dumb stuff but I trust kelhus has a good handle on it.

It's kinda wonderful to see you and wookie waking up to how unproductive it is to tell people what they believe.

No-one ever liked it of course and it it was always far better to generate actual opinions - positive engagement ftw!

Last edited by chezlaw; 08-09-2019 at 05:14 AM.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 12:30 PM

#705

TeflonDawg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,943

Quote:

Originally Posted by microbet

You're just as dishonest as itshot. Out of this new forum triumvirate of you, itshot and Luckbox, Luckbox is the only one who might actually be worth talking to.

I'm in complete agreement with this. Kelhus used to be QuickBen and QuickBen got banned, unsurprisingly. itshot prob would've been banned by now in the old forum

It's basically not worth the time engaging those two when they take one part of your post and turn it into some whole other conversation nobody was actually having, or introducing some perceived view via logical fallacy or straight up falsehood. They're trolls by definition at this point

Quote

08-09-2019 , 03:40 PM

#706

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

An interesting article on psychology and political ideology: What Ails the Right Isn’t (Just) Racism:

Quote:

No one better anticipated today’s societal divisions than the political psychologist Karen Stenner, author of the 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic. The book built on research literature that distinguishes between “authoritarians,” who prize what Stenner calls “oneness and sameness” so much so that they are prone to support coercion to effect it, and “libertarians,” who not only defend but affirmatively prize diversity and difference. (Those labels are not to be conflated with the popular definitions of the terms.)

Quote:

Stenner began her research with a questionnaire that probed the attitudes of her subjects toward child-rearing. Their answers indicated the extent to which they think that it’s more important for kids to obey their parents, have good manners, be neat and clean, and follow the rules—or alternatively, that it’s more important that they are responsible for their own actions, and creative, curious, independent thinkers who follow their own conscience and show good judgment. Designed to provide an unobtrusive, bare-bones measure of each subject’s fundamental stances toward conformity and difference, the child-rearing questionnaires were scored and the subjects arrayed from most libertarian to most authoritarian. Stenner was most interested in the people who scored at the extreme poles.

Quote:

The results were staggering. The group whose child-rearing preferences skewed most toward traits of obedience and conformity were less pleasant, less intelligent, angrier, and less open to experience, among other attributes. But I want to focus on the results related to race. If contacted by white interviewers, the “authoritarians” were almost indistinguishable from the “libertarians” in their willingness to schedule a conversation. They proved dramatically more reluctant to participate when contacted by black interviewers.

The authoritarians were more hostile, suspicious, and anxious with black interviewers, whereas “especially given a black interviewer, libertarians were vastly more likely than authoritarians to display great warmth toward their visitors.”

Quote:

Using “racist” as a shorthand to describe Stenner’s intolerant subjects is inadequate. Remember, they were distinguished eight months prior to being interviewed only by how they answered seemingly innocuous questions about child-rearing. The scores on those questionnaires turned out to predict huge differences in their behavior and interactions with interviewers of different races, who recorded their impressions without knowing the predispositions of their interview subjects or Stenner’s hypothesis.

That’s because their intolerance of difference was much broader than racism, encompassing racial and ethnic out-groups, political dissidents, and people they consider moral deviants. Authoritarians display distinct traits across very different domains of tolerance. Stenner added that this intolerance manifests most commonly in demands for broad conformity, typically including “legal discrimination against minorities and restrictions on immigration; limits on free speech, assembly, and association; and the regulation of moral behavior, for example, via policies regarding school prayer, abortion, censorship, and homosexuality, and their punitive enforcement.”

And she cautioned that “a good deal of what we call racial intolerance is not even primarily about race, let alone blacks, let alone African Americans and their purported shortcomings,” though antiblack, ideological racists do of course exist, and African Americans are harmed regardless of what drives intolerance. “Ultimately,” Stenner contended, “much of what we think of as racism, likewise political and moral intolerance, is more helpfully understood as ‘difference-ism,’” defined as “a fundamental and overwhelming desire to establish and defend some collective order of oneness and sameness.”

It's worth keeping in mind while reading the descriptions of "authoritarians" in the article that the distinctions are being drawn between the extreme ends of a spectrum (which is why I bolded that line in the quote), and most people are not at the extreme ends.

The point being made seems to line up with my own experience pretty well.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 03:49 PM

#707

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Sounds about right

Quote

08-09-2019 , 03:50 PM

#708

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,693

This forum needs a containment thread for Atlantic articles.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 03:53 PM

#709

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

An interesting article on psychology and political ideology: What Ails the Right Isn’t (Just) Racism:

It's worth keeping in mind while reading the descriptions of "authoritarians" in the article that the distinctions are being drawn between the extreme ends of a spectrum (which is why I bolded that line in the quote), and most people are not at the extreme ends.

The point being made seems to line up with my own experience pretty well.

That's pretty good stuff. It kind of lines up with discussions on speech. Some on the left want to regulate hate speech, and some on the right want to regulate perceived censorship by social media.

EDIT: and it points to parenting style which, I'm all on board with as being an issue

Last edited by itshotinvegas; 08-09-2019 at 03:59 PM.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 03:54 PM

#710

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

Question for Dem supporters, if Michelle Obama was willing to seek the Dem party 2020 POTUS nomination would you welcome that? Seems like she could win the POTUS election easily to me. I can’t believe that very many Dem supporters would prefer Biden to her. Bernie and Warren maybe but not Biden. The others are also rans in the 2020 race, let’s keep it real.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 04:33 PM

#711

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,693

Quote:

I brought up some research along these lines in the culture thread--about the origins of bigotry that raised parenting style as an issue and it is really interesting--especially when you can see it. I definitely think it is a factor.
The cause of great grief even if you're babysitting the daughter of an authoriatarian like I've experienced--and the grandma and her grandma and her grandma are the cause of it.
https://www.overcominghateportal.org...bringings.html

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 08-09-2019 at 04:45 PM.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 05:02 PM

#712

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,693

Some more here on parenting styles.

Quote:

Permissive – (high support and low control) – This style of parenting involves high emotional support with plenty of love and nurturing. However, this style does not provide much guidance or developmental support. Instead, the parent allows the child to “be true to themselves” by letting them do what they want with few restrictions.
Authoritarian – (low support and high control) – A parent with this style is demanding and has strict rules. The child receives little to no love and nurturing from their parent(s). Instead, the parent rules using physical punishment and often yells at the child to get cooperation.
Uninvolved – (low support and low control) – Parents with this type of style do not give much regard to their children beyond basic needs (food, shelter, clothes, etc.). Children in this environment receive little to no affection, nurturing, guidance or developmental support. Instead, the parent is busy with their own interests and needs while neglecting their child’s.
Authoritative – (high support and high control) – This style of parenting provides high emotional support with plenty of love and nurturing. A parent with this style also provides guidance and developmental support to the child. This parenting style is seen as most-effective by scientists and psychologists alike.

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 08-09-2019 at 05:07 PM.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 04:01 AM

#713

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

I would take any of the top candidates except Buttigieg over Michelle Obama. She's not really qualified to be President.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 06:13 AM

#714

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I would take any of the top candidates except Buttigieg over Michelle Obama. She's not really qualified to be President.

I will take this as of course I prefer Biden to Michelle. I will try and post more about Biden later highlighting him on the campaign trail. It looks to me that the “elevator isn’t reaching the top floor” with Biden.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 07:29 AM

#715

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

Are a candidate’s mental faculties an important factor for you qualifying for your vote for president?

Quote

08-10-2019 , 01:10 PM

#716

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

That is correct - I definitely do prefer Biden to Obama. You can post whatever you want about Biden being old, I'm unlikely to vote for him in the primary anyway. In the general I'd take Michelle Obama or Biden over Trump instantly.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 02:56 PM

#717

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Sad to see left wing political correctness gone wild

Quote

08-10-2019 , 03:49 PM

#718

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

The worst form of infringement on free speech: having people disagree with you which resulted in DEPLATFORMING.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 04:21 PM

#719

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelhus999

And yet Sam Harris believing Charles Murray isn't a racist makes him a racist by default.

This is what we call cognitive dissonance. Ideologues are more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt when ideologically convenient, and very unwilling to when it goes the other way, and they feel no internal contradictions with this dissonance.

lol with this dumb weak-ass baloney, who do you think you're fooling here? Like we've never seen this "in a vacuum, this one particular statement from person X cannot possibly be enough on its own to prove that person X is racist" gambit before.

If Sam Harris were some nobody who we had never heard of before and the only thing we had ever heard from him is "I'm not sure Charles Murray is racist" then maybe you'd have a point. But literally nobody decided that Sam Harris is racist based on that statement alone. He has a body of work.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 04:26 PM

#720

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,693

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

The worst form of infringement on free speech: having people disagree with you which resulted in DEPLATFORMING.

I was looking forward to a victory lap when this came out so this is a disappointment--although that's probably a horribly immoral position.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 04:34 PM

#721

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

It's alright. There will always be another right wing identity politics thing coming around.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 04:41 PM

#722

Kelhus999

banned

Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 3,282

--I am extremely confident this movie was going to show rich Republican fat cat types hunting poor southern whites (who are guaranteed SJWs, Hillary Swank is the lead, she aint playing no deplorable Trump lover). And they are worried they are going to get it from both sides. The right for how they depict the fat cats as murderers, and the left for having the violence in the first place; so they decided to take the L on the movie and get some publicity for it.

--If you believe at all how the media (left and right) is spinning this story, I don't know what to tell you.

Quote

08-10-2019 , 04:44 PM

#723

Kelhus999

banned

Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 3,282

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

I listen to all his podcasts, including the controversial ones about Charles Murray and his anti-Islam comments (which are actually a very tiny minority). He isn't racist by any reasonable definition of the term.

I mean if you want to argue 98% of people of all races are racist, then sure put him in the grouping I guess.

--Cue: This is where Fly comes in and lets us all know Sam's mom produced the Golden Girls, without elucidating how this is relevant to anything.