Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[jc456]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Indeed, one cannot reason with those who believe such silliness.

Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

Even numbers - as any honest economist would admit - can be skewed to provide a desired conclusion.

You can start by being honest, then respectful... By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor...

The point of the thread is simply to identify myself as someone who came across some studies to suggest correlation with dressing up talking points vs listing objective factual data...

Again, even "factual data" can be spun to create a desired conclusion and in answer to what seems to be your question, most adult posters have formed theirs based on extensive experience (and even research) and will not be swayed by another's opinion of a single point.

well actually a question can be worded to achieve the expected outcome.

 

[jc456]

BTW, it's why polling is dangerous and interferes in the election cycle. they are unconstitutional to me.

 

[Papageorgio]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Indeed, one cannot reason with those who believe such silliness.

Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

Even numbers - as any honest economist would admit - can be skewed to provide a desired conclusion.

You can start by being honest, then respectful... By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor...

The point of the thread is simply to identify myself as someone who came across some studies to suggest correlation with dressing up talking points vs listing objective factual data...

Again, even "factual data" can be spun to create a desired conclusion and in answer to what seems to be your question, most adult posters have formed theirs based on extensive experience (and even research) and will not be swayed by another's opinion of a single point.

Correct, yet he wants us to take him at his word with no evidence. Depending on who put out the study, if it does exist, what was the intent of the study? Obviously it was meant to make conservatives look bad and was biased from the get go to get the result they wanted. Not even trying to conceal the intent. The study, if it exists, supports his preconceived bias and he ran with it. What is amusing is he talks about facts and produces none.

 

[Olde Europe]

now on this i would say you have a point as i am guilty it would seem of doing what i'm bitching about. fair is fair and that's a fair point.

there are times you can't help but speak in general terms to at least get things started. when you live and breath in such a thought process is when you get stagnant and don't open up your mind to what the other person is trying to say.

we all react to "facts" differently. this isn't left based, right based, or the like. it's more how we've been brought up and our own experiences in these matters that come to play in how we react. you can choose to live in LEFT/RIGHT and see things in binary and only binary terms, or you can put that down and talk directly to people and not inject your own views of stereotypes on someone else to defend - ESP if they've never said they supported something you assume they do BECAUSE of stereotypes.

so yes, you have a point. just don't stop there and think that's all i have to offer. when someone speaks in generic terms, i'll do the same. i can also list traits that are common to either side as well. however, i won't take it further and categorize people as LEFT/RIGHT and insist they believe all that the stereotypes believe.

I don't fit one mold. You don't either. None of us do. Yet we treat others to be far more simple than they really are usually out of our own frustrations and/or convenience.

You've been dancing around my question...

"Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?"

... quite artfully, actually, one has to hand it to you. The answer, though, should have been quite obvious. Just take AGW as a case study of conservatives' treatment of facts. "Abysmal" just about describes it. And no, the problems don't arise because we are all brought up differently, or are differently equipped due to different educational attainment. The problems arise when ideology increasingly trumps whatever facts stand in the way. And that's where we are. 20 years ago conservatives' and liberals' acceptance of climate science were just about equal. Since then, with the science getting better and better founded, liberals' agreement has risen, while conservatives' has plummeted.

Whatever...

The study the OP quoted has been around for a while. There is also nothing wrong with presenting facts in a relatable, understandable way to a target audience. However, with a bunch of know-nothings before you, who couldn't tell fact from fiction, neither truth from lie, building up a relation by playing on so-called, allegedly shared stances, sparks an "in-group, out-group", "us vs. them" dynamic that enables demagogues to sell whatever they intend to sell. Salesmen have understood that for ages.

Consider Trump, for instance. He may not really know what he's doing, but he does it exceedingly well. He's playing to every resentment prevalent in his audience, to every grievance, and every hope for revenge he knows is there. He knows all there is to know about the White supremacist self-victimization, how they watch Those people pass them by, reaching elevated status, even becoming President, how they are being robbed of their duly inherited status as the rulers of the world, and the ignominy of it all. And then he sells them a bag of goods, and every lie in the book on top of it. And they gobble, and gobble, and gobble. No slander, no distortion, no lie is too gross, too stinky, too egregious for them to swallow.

And that, I suspect, is the reason why SpinDr. is so fascinated with that study.

 

[jc456]

now on this i would say you have a point as i am guilty it would seem of doing what i'm bitching about. fair is fair and that's a fair point.

there are times you can't help but speak in general terms to at least get things started. when you live and breath in such a thought process is when you get stagnant and don't open up your mind to what the other person is trying to say.

we all react to "facts" differently. this isn't left based, right based, or the like. it's more how we've been brought up and our own experiences in these matters that come to play in how we react. you can choose to live in LEFT/RIGHT and see things in binary and only binary terms, or you can put that down and talk directly to people and not inject your own views of stereotypes on someone else to defend - ESP if they've never said they supported something you assume they do BECAUSE of stereotypes.

so yes, you have a point. just don't stop there and think that's all i have to offer. when someone speaks in generic terms, i'll do the same. i can also list traits that are common to either side as well. however, i won't take it further and categorize people as LEFT/RIGHT and insist they believe all that the stereotypes believe.

I don't fit one mold. You don't either. None of us do. Yet we treat others to be far more simple than they really are usually out of our own frustrations and/or convenience.

You've been dancing around my question...

"Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?"

... quite artfully, actually, one has to hand it to you. The answer, though, should have been quite obvious. Just take AGW as a case study of conservatives' treatment of facts. "Abysmal" just about describes it. And no, the problems don't arise because we are all brought up differently, or are differently equipped due to different educational attainment. The problems arise when ideology increasingly trumps whatever facts stand in the way. And that's where we are. 20 years ago conservatives' and liberals' acceptance of climate science were just about equal. Since then, with the science getting better and better founded, liberals' agreement has risen, while conservatives' has plummeted.

Whatever...

The study the OP quoted has been around for a while. There is also nothing wrong with presenting facts in a relatable, understandable way to a target audience. However, with a bunch of know-nothings before you, who couldn't tell fact from fiction, neither truth from lie, building up a relation by playing on so-called, allegedly shared stances, sparks an "in-group, out-group", "us vs. them" dynamic that enables demagogues to sell whatever they intend to sell. Salesmen have understood that for ages.

Consider Trump, for instance. He may not really know what he's doing, but he does it exceedingly well. He's playing to every resentment prevalent in his audience, to every grievance, and every hope for revenge he knows is there. He knows all there is to know about the White supremacist self-victimization, how they watch Those people pass them by, reaching elevated status, even becoming President, how they are being robbed of their duly inherited status as the rulers of the world, and the ignominy of it all. And then he sells them a bag of goods, and every lie in the book on top of it. And they gobble, and gobble, and gobble. No slander, no distortion, no lie is too gross, too stinky, too egregious for them to swallow.

And that, I suspect, is the reason why SpinDr. is so fascinated with that study.

why not produce a fact that we don't agree with? go!

When I think about, I don't think you know what the definition of a fact is.

 

[Cellblock2429]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

/----/ A Nazi Storm Trooper inspecting a Concentration Camp.

 

[iceberg]

now on this i would say you have a point as i am guilty it would seem of doing what i'm bitching about. fair is fair and that's a fair point.

there are times you can't help but speak in general terms to at least get things started. when you live and breath in such a thought process is when you get stagnant and don't open up your mind to what the other person is trying to say.

we all react to "facts" differently. this isn't left based, right based, or the like. it's more how we've been brought up and our own experiences in these matters that come to play in how we react. you can choose to live in LEFT/RIGHT and see things in binary and only binary terms, or you can put that down and talk directly to people and not inject your own views of stereotypes on someone else to defend - ESP if they've never said they supported something you assume they do BECAUSE of stereotypes.

so yes, you have a point. just don't stop there and think that's all i have to offer. when someone speaks in generic terms, i'll do the same. i can also list traits that are common to either side as well. however, i won't take it further and categorize people as LEFT/RIGHT and insist they believe all that the stereotypes believe.

I don't fit one mold. You don't either. None of us do. Yet we treat others to be far more simple than they really are usually out of our own frustrations and/or convenience.

You've been dancing around my question...

"Do you find a lot of your fellow conservatives are generally exhibiting a decent respect for facts?"

... quite artfully, actually, one has to hand it to you. The answer, though, should have been quite obvious. Just take AGW as a case study of conservatives' treatment of facts. "Abysmal" just about describes it. And no, the problems don't arise because we are all brought up differently, or are differently equipped due to different educational attainment. The problems arise when ideology increasingly trumps whatever facts stand in the way. And that's where we are. 20 years ago conservatives' and liberals' acceptance of climate science were just about equal. Since then, with the science getting better and better founded, liberals' agreement has risen, while conservatives' has plummeted.

Whatever...

The study the OP quoted has been around for a while. There is also nothing wrong with presenting facts in a relatable, understandable way to a target audience. However, with a bunch of know-nothings before you, who couldn't tell fact from fiction, neither truth from lie, building up a relation by playing on so-called, allegedly shared stances, sparks an "in-group, out-group", "us vs. them" dynamic that enables demagogues to sell whatever they intend to sell. Salesmen have understood that for ages.

Consider Trump, for instance. He may not really know what he's doing, but he does it exceedingly well. He's playing to every resentment prevalent in his audience, to every grievance, and every hope for revenge he knows is there. He knows all there is to know about the White supremacist self-victimization, how they watch Those people pass them by, reaching elevated status, even becoming President, how they are being robbed of their duly inherited status as the rulers of the world, and the ignominy of it all. And then he sells them a bag of goods, and every lie in the book on top of it. And they gobble, and gobble, and gobble. No slander, no distortion, no lie is too gross, too stinky, too egregious for them to swallow.

And that, I suspect, is the reason why SpinDr. is so fascinated with that study.

Didn't dance around it at all. You had a point, I explained my stance. You not liking it isn't my shortcoming.

 

[Crepitus]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

Except that the reality is it didn't.

 

[FA_Q2]

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

Then

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

 

[FA_Q2]

When you have a Nazi president throwing people into concentration camps, the time for polite discussion with people who live in their own reality is over.

Indeed, one cannot reason with those who believe such silliness.

Truth is often subjective, like: “A cow's heaven is a flower's idea of hell.”

I was speaking more towards like if I submitted a graph of the deficit as a function of GDP over the past 10-30 years as a longitudinal look at our economy. Not as much as subjective statements like a cow's heaven.

Even numbers - as any honest economist would admit - can be skewed to provide a desired conclusion.

You can start by being honest, then respectful... By not providing a balanced look at any issue, you are in fact, trying to frame a discussion in your favor...

The point of the thread is simply to identify myself as someone who came across some studies to suggest correlation with dressing up talking points vs listing objective factual data...

Again, even "factual data" can be spun to create a desired conclusion and in answer to what seems to be your question, most adult posters have formed theirs based on extensive experience (and even research) and will not be swayed by another's opinion of a single point.

Correct, yet he wants us to take him at his word with no evidence. Depending on who put out the study, if it does exist, what was the intent of the study? Obviously it was meant to make conservatives look bad and was biased from the get go to get the result they wanted. Not even trying to conceal the intent. The study, if it exists, supports his preconceived bias and he ran with it. What is amusing is he talks about facts and produces none.

 

[iceberg]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

Except that the reality is it didn't.

Pass the third grade. I'll be easier to understand then.

 

[Crepitus]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

Except that the reality is it didn't.

Pass the third grade. I'll be easier to understand then.

Oh, so your wrote it at that level?

 

[Ringel05]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

A cursory look at politics through our nation's history (and before) you'll discover that facts were never high on the list in the realm of political debate. What makes contemporary politics any different?

 

[iceberg]

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

Except that the reality is it didn't.

Pass the third grade. I'll be easier to understand then.

Oh, so your wrote it at that level?

You are more predictable than stupid.

CONGRATS I know that wasn't easy.

 

[Olde Europe]

Didn't dance around it at all. You had a point, I explained my stance. You not liking it isn't my shortcoming.

Yeah, you didn't dance, except you danced over five paragraphs to avoid answering a yes/no question. Your so-called "stance" was a mere other-worldly smoke screen, treating facts with contempt. That's your shortcoming.

Here's another question, Iceberg: How many of your fellow conservatives on here have you seen contradict Trump's dismissal of climate change as a "Chinese hoax"? Roughly...

 

[Cellblock2429]

Didn't dance around it at all. You had a point, I explained my stance. You not liking it isn't my shortcoming.

Yeah, you didn't dance, except you danced over five paragraphs to avoid answering a yes/no question. Your so-called "stance" was a mere other-worldly smoke screen, treating facts with contempt. That's your shortcoming.

Here's another question, Iceberg: How many of your fellow conservatives on here have you seen contradict Trump's dismissal of climate change as a "Chinese hoax"? Roughly...

/——-/ Why should we dismiss it? The climate has been changing since day 1 and the Commie leftists have used that as a political tool to harm our country and economy with the gleeful help of useful idiots like you.

 

[JoeB131]

There has to be some kind of civil diplomatic approach and my question to you would be, if you could move the needle on someone's healthcare rights view toward the middle from an extremely polarized state wouldn't it be worth it to know some expert approaches to achieve that? Or, is it a complete waste of time and You would be content with stating your disagreements simply and working harder on your own base to move toward your ideologies?

Again, i'm more than happy to discuss health care, but what's the point?

Let's take HC as an example. Big insurance for YEARS opposed health care reform, proposing instead that we just let the government give them big old subsidies to cover people. And then Democrats kind of caved and agreed to that with the ACA. BUT OH MY GOD, THEY NAMED IT AFTER THE NEGRO!!!!

So you have these poor dumb white trash who have health insurance for the first time in their lives due to the ACA, but man, they hate them some ObamaCare, because it's named after Obama, and they hope that Trump repeals it!

How do you have a 'reasoned" discussion with these tools.

The real problem is, the wealthy donors of the Right Wing has gotten very good at getting working class whites to vote against their own economic interests. So the dumb idiot with the MAGA hat sits there wondering why he doesn't enjoy the lifestyle his dad had... and doesn't realize it's because the GOP has spent the last 40 years undermining unions and his rights as a worker.

But, nope. Trump tells them to blame the Chinese and Mexicans, and they fall into line.

 

[pknopp]

There has to be some kind of civil diplomatic approach and my question to you would be, if you could move the needle on someone's healthcare rights view toward the middle from an extremely polarized state wouldn't it be worth it to know some expert approaches to achieve that? Or, is it a complete waste of time and You would be content with stating your disagreements simply and working harder on your own base to move toward your ideologies?

Again, i'm more than happy to discuss health care, but what's the point?

Let's take HC as an example. Big insurance for YEARS opposed health care reform, proposing instead that we just let the government give them big old subsidies to cover people. And then Democrats kind of caved and agreed to that with the ACA. BUT OH MY GOD, THEY NAMED IT AFTER THE NEGRO!!!!

So you have these poor dumb white trash who have health insurance for the first time in their lives due to the ACA, but man, they hate them some ObamaCare, because it's named after Obama, and they hope that Trump repeals it!

How do you have a 'reasoned" discussion with these tools.

The real problem is, the wealthy donors of the Right Wing has gotten very good at getting working class whites to vote against their own economic interests. So the dumb idiot with the MAGA hat sits there wondering why he doesn't enjoy the lifestyle his dad had... and doesn't realize it's because the GOP has spent the last 40 years undermining unions and his rights as a worker.

But, nope. Trump tells them to blame the Chinese and Mexicans, and they fall into line.

I want some sort of Universal Health Care but Obamacare is not it. You refuse to understand that it is NOT just the "right" that does not like Obamacare. It was little more than a sell out to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. It's made it harder to do the right thing.

Even many who can sign up now still can not afford the co-pays and deductibles.

 

[JoeB131]

My experience is exactly opposite. I am 75%+ conservative and when I speak to a liberal and try to have a civil conversation, it goes South very quickly when they are backed into a corner, particualry with regards to racism. There are many facts and figures that serve to disprove "white privilege" and rampant racism, but bringing up these facts inevitably ends in them implying or calling me a racist.

Oh, please, guy. Anyone who denies white privilege and racism exist is living in denial.

Here's an example. I worked at a place in 2012, where we had 3 people leave our department that summer.

A Chinese woman who worked for the company for 9 years.
A black woman who worked for the company for 2 years
A young white intern who just worked for us for the summer.

NOW- we had going away lunches for all three of these women. Now. Guess which one the White General Manager took time out of his busy schedule to have lunch with?

Yup, the pretty white intern.

I would love to have a civil conversation with a liberal who could provide facts and figures that would back their arguments. The problem is, the vast majority of their policies fail under this scrutiny. When they are challenged, they typically revert back to the racist argument. Evidently, to a leftist, literally everything can be tied back racism, sexism, etc.

Actually, when I argue these points with "conservatives" (Actually, Trump cultists, there are no conservatives anymore), I bring the facts and figures to back up my points, and you guys scream 'Fake news" and just go with your own facts. So it's kind of pointless.

 

[iceberg]

Didn't dance around it at all. You had a point, I explained my stance. You not liking it isn't my shortcoming.

Yeah, you didn't dance, except you danced over five paragraphs to avoid answering a yes/no question. Your so-called "stance" was a mere other-worldly smoke screen, treating facts with contempt. That's your shortcoming.

Here's another question, Iceberg: How many of your fellow conservatives on here have you seen contradict Trump's dismissal of climate change as a "Chinese hoax"? Roughly...

because i was explaining why i "generalized" after telling someone they always stereotype. you seem to have missed where i said fair point on your side for calling me on that. but again, i was explaining what i see as a difference and you're still hellbent on ensuring someone answers YOUR questions YOUR way.

if you can't understand what i am saying, thats again, on you.

now - to answer your question - dunno. i don't tag people one way or another. if they're obviously a cheerleader for one side or the other, they get slid to ignore. YOU are on ignore and i only see this now cause i turn it off for the page and yes, you're still doing the same old shit you always do that made me put you on ignore to begin with.

to directly answer your question - i don't even follow trump saying it's a chinese hoax. why you feel that everyone who is up on what you seem to be up on is again, YOUR issue. for the most part - and again i'm going to generalize here cause individuality seems to escape your concept of thought - conservatives feel that climate change may be happening but it's not 100% due to mankind. "THE LEFT" as we generalize again tends to throw their hands up and call WE'RE DEAD IN 10 YEARS *OF WHICH* al gore has been saying for what, 3 decades now? isn't miami supposed to be underwater by now?

now to put in in terms you may understand, ZERO. and that's because i likely have people talking about it on ignore and i never see the threads either. so now run around and claim HA HA TOLD YOU NO ONE as you will likely miss where i have simply not seen that conversation in here.

god damn you're dense.