Well, I would argue the choice of topics the more ideological minded posters focus on and the direction of their arguments seem to be focused mainly on signaling ideological purity and reinforcing in group solidarity.

It seems there is little interest in sex robots, elephant consciousness or moral philosophy when I bring them up because it is not as clear how to signal correctly. And the ideological minded posters are very conscious of not saying anything that might disrupt in group harmony.

Whatever else may happen to this forum, for me at least it has provided a fascinating natural experiment of sociology in action.

We had an active healthcare thread here before the ****tiest posters on the planet got un-exiled and made every thread about Jordan Peterson & Co.

I answered your questions. But the way these questions are posed, they read like you think I’ve asserted that Democrats “have this all figured out” and “have nothing to do with systemic racism.” Those aren’t positions I’ve ever taken, so I have no idea why you would ask me. I mean, I’m pretty sure I know why, they are common right-wing tropes about the left, which is why I commented about where you choose to get your information.

I responded to your sex robots post, fwiw. Let me know if you want to get in on the ground floor as an investing partner in Sinless, our sex-robot brothel. We figure we’ll target the Bible Belt and Utah/Idaho.

No deal. It. Is impossible to intelligently discuss American politics without talking about race.

You seem hyper focused on the problems of the PC left destroying America as you know it. That is inherently a position on race, so expect people who disagree to respond in kind.

I refuse to believe that a world where we all hold hands and have a good old kumbaya and agree with one another while desperate children are ripped from their parents and locked in internment camps is a utopia.

Yet you claim a world with harmony sounds dystopian. Stange.

You are the one who argued that the outrage over kids being locked in cages was "theater" and that it was wrong to be outraged about it, because it was a tool of your secret ruling cabal. I say **** that, we should be outraged about kids in cages because it is outrageous, and we should not have harmony while it exists.

This is another one of them thar tells, that you buy into Dinesh D'Souza's horse**** retelling of history. Democrats controlled the House and the Senate in 1964, more Democrats voted for it than Republicans did. It was under no possible definition "mostly passed by Republicans".

Instead of identifying who actually does the bad things(the right), we should instead focus on....

What?

This is absolutely gibberish, hope this helps, read a ****ing book.

The fundamental reactionary nature of all these vague anti-elite people is betrayed most harshly when they talk about law enforcement.

What if we coached cops on how to handle ****ing citizens better?

All of this.

Literally in this thread people who are trying to guess at what Luckbox thinks about policy is met with not him just explaining himself, but instead verbose complaints about people trying to pigeonhole him.

I tried to get Kelhus to talk about universal healthcare and socialism and HE went back to complaining that the college boys what done mentioned the existence of racism again, giving him the most terrible case of the vapors.

This is a pretty decent strawmanning of my posts. I said in my first post on the subject that there had been horror stories. Some of those I've came across myself. I never claimed you shouldn't be outraged. I've claimed that outrage is the intent. But that does not mean that there aren't outrageous things happening.

Ok yeah do that too. But try to not get shot until that happens eh?
And lol get real

You realize that policy means very little to me right?
If you mean like actual current and past policy sure that is important but if you mean what i think normatively then we can save that for another thread.

What kind of alternate facts are this. I directly responded to your healthcare post and then made a bunch of socialism related posts no one else was interested in responding to. I am not going to keep a topic alive by myself if noone else is interested.

Yeah and I'm telling you that's bad.

Why should people humor you if you don't seem to know anything about anything, don't seem to have any opinions about what should be done about it, and just generally want to make vague patronizing posts about like "division" and "identity politics" without ever elaborating on what the **** you're talking about?

The king of go tell people to read a book just told me i make patronizing posts. It's good.
The policy forum is exiled politics. This is "politics and society". And it's hard to write posts that appeal to everybody and i wouldn't want to try. If you don't feel like engaging me then don't. If you want policy prescriptions i might humor you there too. I'm not honestly sure you've even asked really which is the funny part. About what policy do you want to know what i think?

Let's go to the tape:

Like, you technically said you're not defending concentration camps, despite defending them in the next sentence, and you definitely called for cooling the moral outrage. Conceding that there are horror stories in the context of telling everyone else to simmer down and how the media is overhyping the whole immigration thing sure sounds like downplaying those horror stories to any reasonable reader. Also, any reasonable reader would conclude that if you think your are exposing a nefarious plan to stir outrage, that you then then think the right thing is to not be outraged. If you think outrage is the appropriate response, then it's not a nefarious plot to stir outrage: it's the Trump administration being evil, something we should be outraged and divided about.

This might be a bit of me lumping everyones arguments into one and then springing that on you, which seems to be a bit of a theme for all parties involved. I'll try to reword the questions to make more sense in context. Also, I get most of my random information from /All on reddit, which is almost exclusively left leaning.

I have posted that I believe certain minorities have it worse on average than white people, that it probably isn't an even playing field. How much credibility does that give me with you?

The answer should be, "Not much". Well, that is kind of how I feel about the Democratic party and acknowledging racism. Everything leading up to this doesn't lend a ton of credibility.

Lets take body cameras as an example. It was left up to the states on how to handle it and limited research has shown a positive effect. This is a national issue and would go a long way in building trust between law enforcement and the people. Its literally step one. Leaving it at the state level seems like an easy out to me.

Why has no one grabbed the bull by the horns and stated systemic racism as a political agenda? Police have a racial bias, minorities don't trust the police, the police are the watch dogs of the law, so why would minorities trust the law? We can't trust the states to handle this, we can't trust the police to handle it, and what are the people going to do?

To me, the outrage is at a citizen level. There should be relative outrage at the government level considering all the outrage at the citizen level. My perceived deficiency in governmental outrage towards the issue is part of my problem with consolidating the outrage.

As an aside, systemic racism is mostly why I don't understand the zeal towards perceived racists. You believe the system is rigged, but you don't want to believe that some people have been brainwashed to accept that rigged system. There is compassion for one, but not for the other.

PS: I just learned Republican is an old white guy club and thought it was the poor person club. Yeah, this should surprise no one.

PSS: "You" is used in the general sense and is not directed specifically towards M2B

Characterizing that post as a defense of camps is very uncharitable, to say the least.

Since you can't be expected to accurately portray things, this is the post i was responding to when i said "cool it on the moral outrage". It is his outrage directed at me I'm talking about. I realize that might not be exactly clear when you leave Fly's post out.

Why would an unreasonable reader come to a more reasonable conclusion than a reasonable reader?

And yeah. I suppose it is pretty hard to explain to an outraged person the outrage is the point. Surely nobody could foresee that if the media displays a bunch of outrage, that people will get outraged. Crazy how that works.

Body cameras have to be implemented at a state level. I’m not sure of how to mandate it at the federal level that would be constitutional.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in that “bull by the horns” paragraph.
Many people, including politicians, have either made or attempted to make big issues out of systemic racism at the political level. That’s what Black Lives Matter was all about! I can’t think of a single politician on the right side of the spectrum who has though. bLM was demonized by the right. AOC talks about that all the time. It gets derided as by you and others as identity politics. Barack Obama’s DOJ tried to do quite a bit to reign in police departments. Remember Ferguson? Yeah the Obama DOJ had a consent decree to make them reform. Guess who undid it when he was elected President?

I also have no idea what you mean in the outrage paragraph? There’s not more outrage at the government level because the people that care are horribly underrepresented in government due to the stupid way it was structured and the Right’s penchant for being unethical pieces of ****.

The last paragraph doesn’t make sense to me either? I’m
Pissed at people who are racist or who help perpetuate racist policies. I don’t believe in brainwashing, no. There’s plenty of evidence show there are serious systemic issues with race in our country. I have little compassion for people who choose to ignore it in favor of stories that make them feel good about themselves.