CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[LoneLaugher]

I asked the person if they believed me. That requires a yes or no answer.....not a challenge to prove it. I wasn't even talking to you.

Now...you must think that I have never "called out" the assholes from far away lands who treat women like shit while professing devotion to Allah.
I've done so hundreds of times.

You are trying to play a stupid game for some reason.

I don't believe that you are intolerant of racism, by the way. I've never seen you express that toward the
fucking racist assholes WHO POST HERE.

Then you haven't been watching.

I'm watching. You call out nobody.

 

[oldsoul]

I asked the person if they believed me. That requires a yes or no answer.....not a challenge to prove it. I wasn't even talking to you.

Now...you must think that I have never "called out" the assholes from far away lands who treat women like shit while professing devotion to Allah.
I've done so hundreds of times.

You are trying to play a stupid game for some reason.

I don't believe that you are intolerant of racism, by the way. I've never seen you express that toward the
fucking racist assholes WHO POST HERE.

Then you haven't been watching.

I'm watching. You call out nobody.

Um... Ok. I refuse to get into a pissing match about it. I know what I have done (and not done), you know what you have done (and not done). You have the right to believe what you like about me. I know what the truth is. The fact that you seem, to me at least, to be taking such offense to my questioning you, suggests that you believe you can (maybe even should) do more. That is between you, your God (if you believe in one, I don't know, nor care), and your conscience. I will however, issue you a challenge. Show evidence that the following statement is untrue:

I do not, however, tolerate racism, have ended relationships over it, and do my best to call people out on it whenever I see it. I believe it to be a stain on human existence.

Go ahead, should be pretty easy, unless your belief that I AM tolerant of racism is not based on evidence... Not sure what else you would base it on, but hey, I don't know everything... Maybe you could enlighten me...

As to whether or not you have ever ""called out" the assholes from far away lands who treat women like shit while professing devotion to Allah." I don't know that you have (or have not), however, I do not base my opinions on things I do not know. I have neither the time, ability, nor inclination to discover the truth about this, therefore, I take your word for it that you have.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

 

[usmbguest5318]

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

Well, I definitely mind folks adhering to an ideology. After all one of the very points for an ideology's existence is to subvert or obviate one's applying critical circumspection to the matter(s) about which the ideology attempts to preempt one's pondering. Get folks to buy the hype that is an ideology and one need not concern oneself with the risk that they might deeply investigate the fact of "this or that" matter for which the ideology has a predefined "answer."

People don't cleave to ideology to override reason, they use it to preempt their having to undertake the effort of reasoning at all. Enabling them to do so is why the ideology is created.

 

[Mac1958]

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

Jim, this may go to definitions. My point is that adherence to an ideology necessarily distorts thought patterns, so that it does in fact override reason and common sense, and it does in fact make it easier to dehumanize other people. So those behaviors are symptoms of the affliction.

Adherence to a set of core principles? Sure, of course, but there is a point at which that adherence intensifies into ideology, at which time the afflicted individual has become so consumed that they are simply no longer thinking as they did before. Perceptions and thought processes become distorted in favor of the ideology.

This happens, at least in my theory, with a combination of two fairly simple things: Exposing yourself more and more exclusively to that ideology alone, and pure repetition. That's precisely what's happening today, as people are choosing not to expose themselves to "news" they don't like, and there are plenty of resources ready to help them do that.

Alternate realities. LITERAL alternate realities. For me to say that's dangerous would be a gross understatement.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

Most people here do not follow an ideology.

They merely say the things expected of them as having been conditioned by their tribe. .

 

[JimBowie1958]

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

Well, I definitely mind folks adhering to an ideology. After all one of the very points for an ideology's existence is to subvert or obviate one's applying critical circumspection to the matter(s) about which the ideology attempts to preempt one's pondering. Get folks to buy the hype that is an ideology and one need not concern oneself with the risk that they might deeply investigate the fact of "this or that" matter for which the ideology has a predefined "answer."

People don't cleave to ideology to override reason, they use it to preempt their having to undertake the effort of reasoning at all. Enabling them to do so is why the ideology is created.

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

Jim, this may go to definitions. My point is that adherence to an ideology necessarily distorts thought patterns, so that it does in fact override reason and common sense, and it does in fact make it easier to dehumanize other people. So those behaviors are symptoms of the affliction.

Adherence to a set of core principles? Sure, of course, but there is a point at which that adherence intensifies into ideology, at which time the afflicted individual has become so consumed that they are simply no longer thinking as they did before. Perceptions and thought processes become distorted in favor of the ideology.

This happens, at least in my theory, with a combination of two fairly simple things: Exposing yourself more and more exclusively to that ideology alone, and pure repetition. That's precisely what's happening today, as people are choosing not to expose themselves to "news" they don't like, and there are plenty of resources ready to help them do that.

Alternate realities. LITERAL alternate realities. For me to say that's dangerous would be a gross understatement.
.

I think that there is a warranted use of ideology as a model for specific perspectives on Reality. It can be a useful thing to use to anticipate what adherents to such ideologies might say before having to hear it from them first hand, but it does not replace Reality or the need to use Primary Sources (i.e. you still have to hear it from them first hand, lol)

For example I understand Mark Levins Constitutionalist Primitivism, but he still shocks me on occasion, like tonight on my way home, I wound up yelling at him for being an ideological hack and turned off the radio. The C&W stations were playing hip hop for some reason.

 

[Mac1958]

For example I understand Mark Levins Constitutionalist Primitivism, but he still shocks me on occasion, like tonight on my way home, I wound up yelling at him for being an ideological hack and turned off the radio.

He's a perfect example. I've heard him call other people ideologues and specifically say that he is NOT one.

The thing is, I believe him, I think he really believes that. That's what ideology does, that's how it affects people. They have conditioned themselves to say whatever ridiculous notion advances their point and just believe it as it comes out of their mouth (or keyboard). That's how they can be so passionate - they believe they have been somehow blessed with The Truth, and will defend The Truth no matter how absurd they have to be.

This is why I look at it as an affliction. Perfectly intelligent people can be infected by this, and it warps their very thought processes.
.

 

[JoeB131]

I dont mind people following some ideology as long as they dont 1) use it to over-ride REason and Common Sense, and 2) do not use it to dehumanize other people categorically and not based on the individual and his behavior..

You say that and still vote Republican?

 

[JoeB131]

Alternate realities. LITERAL alternate realities. For me to say that's dangerous would be a gross understatement.

You mean alternate realities where the "Political Correctness Police" are a thing and there's a scary Muslim under every bed?

Here's the thing. When someone tells me "i'm not an ideologue" I put that right up there with someone who says "I'm not a micro-manager".

 

[flacaltenn]

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

That'll happen every time when the store only sells Miller or Bud.. That's NOT how America THINKS or what political ideas they are wedded to..

Part of prob with your theory is that they might PROMISE to "give you what you want".. But they hardly ever succeed.. It's either botched in implementation or fatally flawed by "bipartisan compromise"...

Mac is correct.. There is a "truth in labeling" problem with politics today.. When you vote Dem -- are you getting the same kind of Liberal that your parents voted for? Or a full blown radical socialist leftist? When you choose Rep -- is it John McCain (another statist liberal) OR a flaming Tea Partier?

And when the store is out of your preference --- where do you go?

It's time to offer more choices. Because of THESE reasons that Mac started out with. And because TWO is not a stable number. It INHERENTLY causes polarization.. And because the parties have BECOME the tyranny.. Only 4 people run the Congress and control the dialogue. They've remade the rules and proceedures in their own images.

 

[flacaltenn]

Two magnets can only push and pull.. But a number of magnets makes a motor.. Kinda like my Avie.. It's HARDER to DUCK the details of issues if there's more than 2 fingers pointing at each other..

 

[Mac1958]

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

That'll happen every time when the store only sells Miller or Bud.. That's NOT how America THINKS or what political ideas they are wedded to..

Part of prob with your theory is that they might PROMISE to "give you what you want".. But they hardly ever succeed.. It's either botched in implementation or fatally flawed by "bipartisan compromise"...

Mac is correct.. There is a "truth in labeling" problem with politics today.. When you vote Dem -- are you getting the same kind of Liberal that your parents voted for? Or a full blown radical socialist leftist? When you choose Rep -- is it John McCain (another statist liberal) OR a flaming Tea Partier?

And when the store is out of your preference --- where do you go?

It's time to offer more choices. Because of THESE reasons that Mac started out with. And because TWO is not a stable number. It INHERENTLY causes polarization.. And because the parties have BECOME the tyranny.. Only 4 people run the Congress and control the dialogue. They've remade the rules and proceedures in their own images.

Zealots think that most people are like they are. They have virtually zero self-awareness.

The fact is, they represent a minority of the populace, but cause, by far, most of the problems and division.

A majority of the people have at least some capacity and willingness to think for themselves.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Two magnets can only push and pull.. But a number of magnets makes a motor.. Kinda like my Avie.. It's HARDER to DUCK the details of issues if there's more than 2 fingers pointing at each other..

Two fingers?


Now that you mention it, when I read some of the hyper partisan postings here, I do seem to have the central finger on each hand extend itself seemingly beyond my conscious control

 

[PredFan]

I recently have come to believe that most zealots here argue for the sole reason to see how clever they can be. They are not interested in learning anything or settling anything, they are simply trying to defeat their opponent. They want to put their minds against someone and they will use any means necessary to do so. They will lie, distract, derail, whatever, just as long as they win. And winning doesn’t mean that their opponent sees it their way in the end, to them winning is making their opponent look like a fool. That said I also believe that there are those who just want to exercise their brains.

Many people here would call me a zealot but of course that’s objective. I don’t argue for the mental exercise or to make my opponent look silly. That is why I only give lefties a couple of posts to make a point and 9 times out of 10 they will begin lying or deflecting or completely go off the rails. It’s at that time that I tell them to fuck off and I stop wasting my time.

 

[flacaltenn]

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

That'll happen every time when the store only sells Miller or Bud.. That's NOT how America THINKS or what political ideas they are wedded to..

Part of prob with your theory is that they might PROMISE to "give you what you want".. But they hardly ever succeed.. It's either botched in implementation or fatally flawed by "bipartisan compromise"...

Mac is correct.. There is a "truth in labeling" problem with politics today.. When you vote Dem -- are you getting the same kind of Liberal that your parents voted for? Or a full blown radical socialist leftist? When you choose Rep -- is it John McCain (another statist liberal) OR a flaming Tea Partier?

And when the store is out of your preference --- where do you go?

It's time to offer more choices. Because of THESE reasons that Mac started out with. And because TWO is not a stable number. It INHERENTLY causes polarization.. And because the parties have BECOME the tyranny.. Only 4 people run the Congress and control the dialogue. They've remade the rules and proceedures in their own images.

Zealots think that most people are like they are. They have virtually zero self-awareness.

The fact is, they represent a minority of the populace, but cause, by far, most of the problems and division.

A majority of the people have at least some capacity and willingness to think for themselves.
.

I really don't anticipate this getting better for the party animals in the near future given the scandals of the day and the inability to manage and function in Washington...

 

[Mac1958]

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

That'll happen every time when the store only sells Miller or Bud.. That's NOT how America THINKS or what political ideas they are wedded to..

Part of prob with your theory is that they might PROMISE to "give you what you want".. But they hardly ever succeed.. It's either botched in implementation or fatally flawed by "bipartisan compromise"...

Mac is correct.. There is a "truth in labeling" problem with politics today.. When you vote Dem -- are you getting the same kind of Liberal that your parents voted for? Or a full blown radical socialist leftist? When you choose Rep -- is it John McCain (another statist liberal) OR a flaming Tea Partier?

And when the store is out of your preference --- where do you go?

It's time to offer more choices. Because of THESE reasons that Mac started out with. And because TWO is not a stable number. It INHERENTLY causes polarization.. And because the parties have BECOME the tyranny.. Only 4 people run the Congress and control the dialogue. They've remade the rules and proceedures in their own images.

Zealots think that most people are like they are. They have virtually zero self-awareness.

The fact is, they represent a minority of the populace, but cause, by far, most of the problems and division.

A majority of the people have at least some capacity and willingness to think for themselves.
.

I really don't anticipate this getting better for the party animals in the near future given the scandals of the day and the inability to manage and function in Washington...

Oh, I don't either. The parties are controlled by their wings and the rest of us can only ask them to get over themselves.

I have no idea what fixes this.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

What happened in 2004-2008? Roughly the Dem party fractures into progressive/liberal and the Tea Party started to do the same in the Repub camp.. In 2016 --- Trump PIRATED the Repub party and the DNC was bought by the candidate. It's a sign of the rot and internal division.. And folks are FLEEING in large numbers.

 

[Mac1958]

What happened in 2004-2008? Roughly the Dem party fractures into progressive/liberal and the Tea Party started to do the same in the Repub camp.. In 2016 --- Trump PIRATED the Repub party and the DNC was bought by the candidate. It's a sign of the rot and internal division.. And folks are FLEEING in large numbers.

Worse, I think both parties know that a viable third option simply doesn't have a chance. They have zero motivation to behave any differently. The Democrats are gearing up, waiting for demographics to take over (which will almost certainly work) and the Republicans are fighting it in a way that is to their own detriment. Yuck.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

That'll happen every time when the store only sells Miller or Bud.. That's NOT how America THINKS or what political ideas they are wedded to..

Part of prob with your theory is that they might PROMISE to "give you what you want".. But they hardly ever succeed.. It's either botched in implementation or fatally flawed by "bipartisan compromise"...

Mac is correct.. There is a "truth in labeling" problem with politics today.. When you vote Dem -- are you getting the same kind of Liberal that your parents voted for? Or a full blown radical socialist leftist? When you choose Rep -- is it John McCain (another statist liberal) OR a flaming Tea Partier?

And when the store is out of your preference --- where do you go?

It's time to offer more choices. Because of THESE reasons that Mac started out with. And because TWO is not a stable number. It INHERENTLY causes polarization.. And because the parties have BECOME the tyranny.. Only 4 people run the Congress and control the dialogue. They've remade the rules and proceedures in their own images.

Zealots think that most people are like they are. They have virtually zero self-awareness.

The fact is, they represent a minority of the populace, but cause, by far, most of the problems and division.

A majority of the people have at least some capacity and willingness to think for themselves.
.

I really don't anticipate this getting better for the party animals in the near future given the scandals of the day and the inability to manage and function in Washington...

Oh, I don't either. The parties are controlled by their wings and the rest of us can only ask them to get over themselves.

I have no idea what fixes this.
.

Look at how much attention and coverage that 3 "short-timers" got this past year. Flake, Corker and McCain. No longer chained and muzzled by the party bosses. Just 4 or 8 independent "outsiders" from this polarization would create a lot of new opportunity for getting things under control... Every time a close vote comes up -- the coverage would be all about "who's gonna get the Indies"? Doesn't take an invasion of power to make the change.

Get people to STOP rewarding the dysfunction and trivial conflict by voting for brand name "winners"...