Good bad faith arguing browni

Browni, you're not very self aware.

When you say "this comes off badly for you" towards fly then the next three posts are people laughing at you, maybe time for some introspection?

Explain why you think I'm arguing in bad faith.

Fly attacked my character without providing any basis by asserting I have some sort of superiority complex. I would not have even replied to him except that I thought it was a good example of the behavior I am advocating against.

I value and practice introspection. Alas, I'm missing why I'm being laughed at, so you're going to have help me out.

We've down this rodeo now literally 100 times. The joke just isnt funny anymore, much like modern day Morrissey.

Well, first of all, trying to individually one-on-one jawbone peeps into changing their beliefs is probably the least effective way of changing the world even possible. Basically lol at figuring out the best worst way. That wasn't really my point however.

As an example, let's say I wanna jawbone someone who believes there is nothing wrong with the current ALEC wave of voter ID laws. I *might* feel, in an example of a bilateral face-to-face chat, that I'll have more success with my target if I refrain from saying "Voter ID laws are racist". So, in this example, I'd just not say that.

OTOH, consider a multilateral, asynchronous, anonymous interwebs forum. In this case, given a certain critical mass of a participant group, it's pretty much certain that at least one other participant is going to post "Voter ID laws are racist". So... if I'm choosing tactics in this second example, the tactic of just not mentioning the alleged factoid that voter id are racist... that tactic doesn't even practically exist.

Got it?

This goes back to what I was getting at before. In a bilateral face-to-face chat with someone you need/want to keep engaging with into the future... sure, perhaps yelling louder is less effective than some other unnamed tactics (which hasn't been demonstrated, and would depend on what those other candidate tactics actual were).

OTOH, here on an interwebs forum, it's literally impossible to yell over anyone (or yell at all).

Again: tactics that might be bad (or good) in one scenario ~ might not even be logically possible ~ in another scenario.

I'm 100% convinced the USA will have another civil war in the next 20 years.

You're my boys Blue!

Morrissey still exists? Why would anybody still care?

Kick 'em when they fall down

I've seen political successes happen in other people's lives, and now it's not happening in mine ahhh hooiiyy

plastic straws aren't banned in most cities around the world, so how can it be a centrist proposition to ban them?

@shame trolly why do you think that the normal poster in a forum wants to change other people ideas? I think there are several reasons why people post in forums but changing other people idea is very low on the list for most posters.

For example when I fight with Italian racists on Twitter or Italian forums, I know it's almost impossible to have they change their mind. But I do it anyway for 3 reasons:

1) I want to know my enemy and the way they answer my arguments show me how they reason
2) I want to help fellow non-racists that could get the idea racism is dominant, if no people answer to racists wild claim.
3)i want to recheck my inner reasoning constantly and explicitating them forces me to check the internal logic of my positions again and confirm or dismiss my previous considerations.

I think many people become active posters for similar reasons, in politics.

Imagine being just insanely triggered by the banning of straws.

Left: You put an accused rapist on the Supreme Court. We're outraged!

Right: LOL calm down liberals, you're so easily triggered.

....

Right: YOU BANNED PLASTIC STRAWS IN A CITY I'M NEVER VISITING??????????? HAVE YOU NO DECENCY??????????? THIS IS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're not averse to a bit of polarisation after all.

"Man, this discourse is toxic! Now HERE is exactly the kind of engagement I support."

[link to African American man trying to befriend white supremacists]

Good policy is how we drive progress. The right will follow and the center will move leftwards. The spirit of 45 was a triumph, if gave us the NHS, welfare etc. That didn't polarise society, it moved the center to the left and changed society for the better for just about everyone.

Policy is where the political debate should be and the progressives/left needs to drive it with well thought out radical polcies, enagaing with the electorate, winning the argument/elections and actually changing things for the better. Not indulging in nonsense about coddling vs screaming, personal abuse/refusing to enagage with huge swathes of the electorate etc etc - the main beneficery of that are the extremists who dont care about making anyhtign better - they thrive best on the anger, fear, social division, economic failure etc

I am not "insanely triggered" by the plastic straw ban. But i see it as extremists being very good at getting attention, which was the thing i was answering to.

I can see where this applies to the US, because many policies that are mainstream in civilized society aren't part of US society (healthcare, college, maternity leave , gun control etc etc).

But how does what you wrote apply to germany, or the netherlands or other advanced societies? which vital policies are they missing from their framework, that the left asks for and the right denies?

Every single "I don't fit in your box, man" Intellectual Dork Web dip**** always ends up being a vaguely libertarian reactionary but always thinks that playing dumb about it will prevent people from finding out. "right?"

Hey man if you sincerely have never encountered the word "reactionary" maybe talking about political persuasion is above your paygrade? Might want to hit the ****ing dictionary up before you start telling other people what to do.

No it shines very well on me. It makes me look perceptive! That I'm asking you to cut the bull**** and skip to the end where you admit that you personally believe all sorts of horrifying reactionary horse**** and that rather than being an member of our team offering constructive criticism on how to change minds you're obviously a member of the opposition offering up concern trolling on how to avoid hurting your feelings will look quite prescient when people press you about your garbage and facile political views.

That guy is a self promoting huckster, for one thing. For another, oh, no it's not. Son like I said you think you're ever so smart but that's because you hide in a bubble.

None of the **** you've said and none of the **** you're about to say about coddling racists and being gentle with fascists is new, it's all tired and old.

I’m trying to figure out your idea here, help me out a bit:

Let’s take a hypothetical government that passes a different environmental regulation. Let’s say that the regulation is that, in order to preserve forest land, the government can expropriate land that borders forests, without giving any compensation to the owner of that land, in the name of preserving the environment and growing the forests. Would you consider that evidence that the government is controlled by “left wing extremists” to borrow your line?

It happened because of what could be called a quite polarising event, which is why the public demanded a fairer society.

You seem to be advocating polarisation here, not condemning it.

I think things would actually be a lot worse. proportionally, rural areas would control even more than they do now. govt would be even less representative on its population.

jfc

ya bro, Im part of the problem bc I refuse to spend my limited social time with ppl who think families fleeing death and violence should be separated and put in concentration camps. who think poors should not have access to medical treatment and should die. who think nfl players who kneel should be deported. Ill stop there but we both know theres plenty more.

If the constitution of that country allows for expropriation without compensation then that's the leftwing extremism right there. Not even the very-lefty italian constitution (we have healthcare rights in the constitution, since 1946, just to give an example, an asylum rights for ANY PERSON COMING FROM A NON-DEMOCRACY, in the constitution) allows for expropriation without compensation. Expropriation for public utility is mentioned in the constitution, that also mentions
indemnification though in case of that.

So any country which allows for expropration without any compensation has an extreme leftwing constitution, at least for that issue.

Then the government that uses such extreme leftwing tool would be, in that specific issue (environment/property rights) extremely on the left yes.

In prder for this to make sense you should explain why it didn't happen after WW1, given that by all accounts for UK (and most other countries) WW1 was more polarizing, more destructive etc etc.

yep. and since blacks were made equal then, they have nothing to complain about now. so all of this protesting and crying is just those entitled, lazy, criminals, trying to get free stuff and bring down our society.