Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[Lazaran]

Okaaaay. Mr lawyer. I read this three times. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your claim that you want to engage in a legitimate debate. It's been a long time since I've read anything at this erudite level, so forgive my slowness in digesting it in bits and pieces.

I'll hand it to you; you are not like Harpy. My bad–for thinking that might be the case. Arphy would have been frothing over the subject matter and accusative or at least telling his attacker to go F* themselves. You are not that guy, in my view.

So, please hang around. Don't jump ship or ride off on a sea lion. This was well put together and persuasive. Now, I need time to digest it.

So you enjoy going on pointless sojourns into the weeds when a bunch of gobbledygook legalistic misdirection is formatted in a seemingly civil and competent manner???



Privacy, freedom, safety, and choice are simple concepts that don’t require a deep dive into the weeds of gobbledygook legalistic misdirection, imho.

 

[SimonDoom]

You offer an observation. Please, offer a solution. Then the sea lions and sharks can ridicule you like any of the sane and sensible members who stay afloat here.

Fair enough. I don't have a "solution," but I have a preferred modus operandi that I TRY to use in engaging with people I disagree with, whether here or in the Author's Hangout. This is off the cuff, but here goes:

1. I believe that very little is obviously true. We get deeply embedded in what we believe, but the reality is that our beliefs are far more contingent and far less obvious than we think they are. We might change them if we thought the facts were different, and the truth is that few of us are such experts on things that we can be absolutely certain we know the facts. So I try to keep an open mind and be willing to listen to someone with different views because I recognize that I, just like everyone else, could be deeply wrong about some things that I believe to be true.

2. I assume as a default position that people assert their beliefs in good faith. I assume they're not trying to troll me or the board. I may be persuaded otherwise based on their conduct, but I don't assume a lack of good faith just because they disagree with me.

3. My views have never, ever neatly aligned with the two major political parties in the USA, and I've always thought it's ridiculous to think "One party good, other party bad." It seems obvious to me that the two major parties for the most part represent coalitions of different powerful interest groups, and interest groups are neither good nor bad. To some extent they represent different principles, but only to some extent.

4. I try, as much as I can, to avoid calling people with whom I disagree names. I don't call people "dumb" or the equivalent. I try not to make assumptions about what they know or don't know, because I don't know what they know.

5. I don't ever, every believe that any fundamental political issue is "simple" or that there is just one side to any issue. I don't ever believe that. There are different sides to every issue.

6. I think there's value in communicating in a civil way with people whose values I think are extreme or abhorrent.

7. If somebody says something that I partly disagree with, I'll look for the area of common ground so we can have a meaningful discussion, rather than focusing on where we disagree. This is the opposite of how many people engage in online discussions. Often, you can agree with another person 75% or more, but they're so incensed that you don't agree with them completely that they go after you like a dog going at a bone about the remaining 25%. I think this is counterproductive.

8. The single hardest thing to do is to keep your mind open to the possibility that you might change your mind on an issue if the facts were different from what you think they are. I think the way most people think is that they dig in on their basic values and then they choose to believe whatever facts suit their values. I try not to do that, probably with mixed degrees of success. I think it's important to keep your mind open to the possibility that somebody might know something you don't and be able to change your mind.

9. I don't believe the world is about to end. I think it's more resilient than some think. It's easier to be open minded if you don't believe that if the other side wins the next election you and the planet will be destroyed. Democrats and Republicans are less different than many partisan Americans think they are. I don't agree with the Trumpists that Kamala Harris is a Marxist. I don't agree with the Democrats who say Trump is a fascist. People who say these things don't really understand what Marxism or fascism are.

10. I try to maintain a sense of humor about it all. I find people who froth at the mouth with outrage that you disagree with them tedious. I don't at all believe that if you're not outraged you don't care. You can care and still find humor in things. To my way of thinking, it's the only way to stay sane.

 

[dmallord]

So you enjoy going on pointless sojourns into the weeds when a bunch of gobbledygook legalistic misdirection is formatted in a seemingly civil and competent manner???



Privacy, freedom, safety, and choice are simple concepts that don’t require a deep dive into the weeds of gobbledygook legalistic misdirection, imho.

It was a refresher course on Constitutional Law 101. How do you know it is gobbledygook misdirection if you don't study the gobbler?

All good concepts.

Legal weeds are planted to maintain job security. No amateurs are allowed in the courthouse, like a Ferrari mechanic who does not want an owner to tinker with 'his machine.'

 

[PaxNurgle]

I don't support Donald Trump. Let's get that straight.

But over 74 million people voted for him in 2020. The vast majority are not fascists. Donald Trump is not a fascist, if one wants to be historically accurate about the use of the term. The term "fascist" is hyperbole.

I know people who voted for Donald Trump, and I've heard their reasons. I didn't agree with them, but it's not true that there's no debate. I know that they are not racists and fascists.

This is what I mean. If one thinks this way, there is no possibility of reasoned debate. You are every bit as unreasonable on this point as the people you disagree with.

I actually like a lot of what you post; you are certainly one of the better posters on here- regardless of whether I agree with you or not.

I do try to avoid devloving into name calling, but it is frustrating when dealing with blatant trolls and willfully ignorant people- by that I mean, those who throw words like "Marxism" around as a catch-all term for "Any non-far-right social or economic policy" or those who insist that conspiracy theories are true despite them being disproven (e.g. "Trump rightfully won in 2020," and/or "Covid vaccine causes Rabies." There are just some people- trolls- who are impossible to reason with and have a meaningful discussion with- regardless of their views.

With that said, what you posted about Trump; the majority of Trump voters I have met do not enthusiastically support him and never did. The key is, ENTHUSIASTIC support- key point here. In other words, they are luke-warm Trump voters- not necessarily supporters- who do not particularly like him, but they voted for him anyway, for one or two basic reasons. Either they bought into the over-hyped fear mongering rhetoric of "The Border! The Border!" or they feel that the fiscal policies of the Republican party favor their economic situation better than the over-regulation of the Democratic party. (Most 2020 Biden voters felt the same way about Biden as well- They would have preferred a better candidate but he wasn't Trump, ergo he got their vote.)

So there is a difference between passive party-line Republican Trump voters and active Trump SUPPORTERS. The latter, who make up a small minority of his voters, like him for the same reason most people fear and dislike him- they WANT a strong, authoritarian leader who operates without checks and balances. They WANT to transform America into their own dystopian fantasy Christianized version of Middle-Eastern theocracy. They WANT a leader who allows (or even promotes) discrimination against other groups of people, and they WANT a leader who operates above the law, and they even approve of his utterly immoral and unethical behavior- because it matches their own.

Needless to say, I have the biggest problem dealing with these people, as I feel they are immoral, unethical, and in some cases, even sociopathic.

So no, not every Trump voter is a wannabe Nazi, but there are some who clearly are.

Some who, in fact, frequently post on this forum.

 

[Lazaran]

It was a refresher course on Constitutional Law 101. How do you know it is gobbledygook misdirection if you don't study the gobbler?

All good concepts.

Legal weeds are planted to maintain job security. No amateurs are allowed in the courthouse, like a Ferrari mechanic who does not want an owner to tinker with 'his machine.'

My post stands as written.

I believe you may be missing the point.

 

[dmallord]

Fair enough. I don't have a "solution," but I have a preferred modus operandi that I TRY to use in engaging with people I disagree with, whether here or in the Author's Hangout. This is off the cuff, but here goes:

1. I believe that very little is obviously true. We get deeply embedded in what we believe, but the reality is that our beliefs are far more contingent and far less obvious than we think they are. We might change them if we thought the facts were different, and the truth is that few of us are such experts on things that we can be absolutely certain we know the facts. So I try to keep an open mind and be willing to listen to someone with different views because I recognize that I, just like everyone else, could be deeply wrong about some things that I believe to be true.

2. I assume as a default position that people assert their beliefs in good faith. I assume they're not trying to troll me or the board. I may be persuaded otherwise based on their conduct, but I don't assume a lack of good faith just because they disagree with me.

3. My views have never, ever neatly aligned with the two major political parties in the USA, and I've always thought it's ridiculous to think "One party good, other party bad." It seems obvious to me that the two major parties for the most part represent coalitions of different powerful interest groups, and interest groups are neither good nor bad. To some extent they represent different principles, but only to some extent.

4. I try, as much as I can, to avoid calling people with whom I disagree names. I don't call people "dumb" or the equivalent. I try not to make assumptions about what they know or don't know, because I don't know what they know.

5. I don't ever, every believe that any fundamental political issue is "simple" or that there is just one side to any issue. I don't ever believe that. There are different sides to every issue.

6. I think there's value in communicating in a civil way with people whose values I think are extreme or abhorrent.

7. If somebody says something that I partly disagree with, I'll look for the area of common ground so we can have a meaningful discussion, rather than focusing on where we disagree. This is the opposite of how many people engage in online discussions. Often, you can agree with another person 75% or more, but they're so incensed that you don't agree with them completely that they go after you like a dog going at a bone about the remaining 25%. I think this is counterproductive.

8. The single hardest thing to do is to keep your mind open to the possibility that you might change your mind on an issue if the facts were different from what you think they are. I think the way most people think is that they dig in on their basic values and then they choose to believe whatever facts suit their values. I try not to do that, probably with mixed degrees of success. I think it's important to keep your mind open to the possibility that somebody might know something you don't and be able to change your mind.

9. I don't believe the world is about to end. I think it's more resilient than some think. It's easier to be open minded if you don't believe that if the other side wins the next election you and the planet will be destroyed. Democrats and Republicans are less different than many partisan Americans think they are. I don't agree with the Trumpists that Kamala Harris is a Marxist. I don't agree with the Democrats who say Trump is a fascist. People who say these things don't really understand what Marxism or fascism are.

10. I try to maintain a sense of humor about it all. I find people who froth at the mouth with outrage that you disagree with them tedious. I don't at all believe that if you're not outraged you don't care. You can care and still find humor in things. To my way of thinking, it's the only way to stay sane.

I live by a similar design. Some would call it 'live and let live.' But, child, you are gonna get eaten if you think you can maintain an intellectual level while staying here with that idealistic mindset. Orcas eat seals and sea lions, you know?

In this ocean, there are large and small Orcas. All have teeth, mostly. [I think a few older Literaticans are all bark and have no bite due to the loss of their dentures.]

Enjoy the swim. The food chain is highly active in the warm equatorial waters. One here even says those waters are carbon-based, so don't swallow too much, or you'll get 'seasick.'

#5. There are certainly different sides to most issues, but not all. I believe there is only one right answer to these issues: slavery, child labor, human trafficking, and genocide.

#6. That's not going to work!

 

[dmallord]

My post stands as written.

I believe you may be missing the point.

It could be an age-related thing.

You said, "Privacy, freedom, safety, and choice are simple concepts that don’t require a deep dive into the weeds of gobbledygook legalistic misdirection, imho."

For most general matters, this approach works well for expressing opinions. However, when discussing Constitutional constructs, it may be necessary to delve deeper into the background of why and how laws came into being. It's a complex and intricate topic to explore.

The armpit guy, @HisArphy, says similar, though far nastier, things about me. But is it really so profound that I should worry or lose sleep over a missed point? Let's remember that we can always move on with life and let it slide.

I do take your points seriously. So, there is that.

 

[MiaBabe23]

Doom, I know you like to consider the basics, so -
No doubt you’re mindful of the debates of the likes of Eatwell, Griffin and Payne, whose points might be summarized as concluding that fascism consists of:
a strong, dictatorial leader; a unified, homogeneous populace; absolute loyalty to the state leader who defines the nation; oppression of opposing voices
The above you’ll recognize as necessarily simplified, due to lack of space and the need for a working definition for the purposes of the discussion - do say if you think modifications are needed, or there are elements you fundamentally disagree with or think are missing.
So -

. I don't agree with the Democrats who say Trump is a fascist

But given what we can accept is meant by fascism, you do understand the alarm - pledges to become a dictator for a day; association with those who describe themselves as fascist; pledges to lock up opponents on the basis of them having criticized him and / or held him to account; suggestions that it is unacceptable to criticize him and that everyone must unify behind him; false equivalence drawn by him between protesters and those who use violence to achieve political goals; his actions, including inciting violence and the overthrow of the system.

So why do you become irritated when people point out Trump’s fascist traits and leanings?

 

[PaxNurgle]

Interestingly, although your points are valid, I hear a lot of people, for example, the Icanwizzardharpy's, Rightguide, and the various Busybody alter-ergos, who bandy the terms "Socialism," and "Marxism' around frequently when describing the Democrats' (or even, occasionally, the more moderate Republicans') social and economic policies.

The main difference, is these people have a much harder time actually understanding what true socialism and Marxism is, or how it applies to the things they disagree with. (Because most of the time it doesn't; for example, they try to claim that opposition to racism and bigotry is "Marxist.").

 

[JohnEngelman]

Which is preferable? A woman not experiencing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Easy answer, right?

Sadly, while it SHOULD be that easy...it's not!
Why?

Because many of the SAME PEOPLE and the SAME ORGANIZATIONS that are basically trying to reduce women to nothing more than state-owned breeding stock, are, at the same time, trying to take away all forms of contraception and birth control.

They are trying to ban or restrict access to morning-after pills.
They are trying to ban or restrict access to birth control pills.
They are trying to outlaw sex-education in schools, and restrict information on family planning and contraception.
There are even efforts to make condoms and IUD's harder to obtain.

These are things that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies. But ironically, many of the same militantly pro-life organizations, people, and political figures are AGAINST these things. Why would they be against them?

Simple. Because abortion was never the end game. They basically want to outlaw all sex that is non-procreative or pleasurable. Control people's sexual behavior; it's about repression, power and control. Even if abortion is outlawed nationwide, for any and all reasons, these people will not stop there- and they have said so. It's one of the planks of Project 2025 in fact.

If "pro life" people were consistently pro life they would support universal health care. Universal health care would reduce the number of women who die in pregnancy and the number of infant mortalities.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

Getting back to the original poster's original comment: I do enjoy investigating different points of view. When I am trying to find where truth lies on a complex and controversial subject, any appeal to emotion inclines me to give more credence to the other side. This is true of insults and name calling.

Generally speaking, I have a high opinion of the other posters here. Their comments frequently present facts I had not known and insights I had not considered.

 

[Chernosoth]

This is a dangerous time for the unwary. There are scammers and controlling abusers always looking for gullible marks, and there is malignant incompetence in the ruling class. Being reluctant to see new perspectives can be a healthy response to seeing systemic self-destruction.