151–160 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like how women and people of color are CONSTANTLY despised for the incidents of their birth?
Fomenting hatred is so lame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, you edited your comment. Second, you conveniently omit the part where he says he does support disenfranchised people. Third and most importantly, you bizarrely substitute leftist contempt for actual trust. Personally I think this is a pretty selfish statement that involves casting your state of mind and perspective onto someone else with a very negative sentiment.
I edited my comment to add: How about instead, you stand for women and people of color because it's the right thing to do? Regardless of how little they trust white men. Maybe, just maybe, try and understand why they wouldn't trust white men? The horror!
If you're in favor of good causes, or you have better arguments, it's enough to represent those with good information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Arthur Brooks is speaking out now to get ahead of the shitstorm that people like Arthur Brooks created for themselves by being contemptuous of the rank and file American worker for decades. Sweeping generalizations such as "people like him" are bad, seems both contemptuous & a shallow examination.
How's being purposefully obtuse working out for you?
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I hate Arthur Brooks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean...it's not 'The Left' that's pushing the 'fake news' and 'alternate facts' agenda when they come up against anything they disagree with...
Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and Rachel Maddow have all used "No one could honestly believe that what we say is really true" as an argument in legal proceedings against them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they take the perspective that the "other team" is hurting the country, so hurting them helps the country. Almost all evil comes from the over-application of morality. "My team is good, and their team is bad, and it is good to hurt bad people." The problem is that democracy depends on cooperation. If you insist on winning at all costs, the other side adopts your tactics and it becomes a no-holds barred power st…
> Well, they take the perspective that the "other team" is hurting the country, so hurting them helps the country. It seems like the perspective gets taken to - as I write above - justify, after-the-fact, "why I've decided the same way my herd decided". There is a lot of grasping for easy answers ("Yeah, he must be being controlled by China, that's a good enough answer for me!") and cognitive dissonnace when challeng…
Full moral consistency is almost impossible: you're always balancing self-interests with other higher ideals, etc., and there's always some dissonance. This is just a more problematic example of people striking that kind of moral balance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones These are well-known... > and Rachel Maddow I couldn't find any such thing in the news. Source for that one?
The ruling(which Maddow won): https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDO... The specific details are Maddow was talking about a journalist from another network(OAN), and said something like "This person is literally paid by the Russian government to produce news stories". Maddow's team argued that it isn't slander because no reasonable viewer of her show would take that statement to be truthful desp…
Quoting the appeals decision, The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story.
Equating Maddow’s exaggeration with Jones and Carlson is just rank bothsiderism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite an example of left-wing news outlets playing "fast and loose" in a way that literally jeopardized the foundation of US democracy and incited mass violence? Even if you think the investigation into Trump's ties to Russian influence was unjustified, it relied on democratically-elected representatives to impeach him, and it never undermined the rule of law itself. I'm sure you can find examples with lesser…
You start off with a premise that is not immediately obvious. You claim right-wing news outlets are jeopardizing the 'foundation of US democracy', but most right wingers would counter that democracy is not the foundational value of the United States, but rather, individual rights, that even democracy is subservient to the rights of the individual. For example, no matter how many people would vote for such an ability,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The left believes compassion, ideals, rational argument, and consideration of material self-interest My goodness.. this comment is so full of itself I can't even. Yes, us right wingers believe it's good to be uncompassionate. > they write endless tracts trying to prove their point, appealing to science and founding principles and so forth And yet, most left wingers are so disconnected from the reality of people on…
> Portland decided to encourage blacks to get vaccinated by putting ads of black drag queens up. This is called nutpicking. You claim this example is representative (and you claim you have adequately represented who did what for what purpose). I claim it is confirmation bias. We could settle this with statistics. > The left screamed for years about Trump's manner of speech (not his content, simple the manner). For ex…
This is one of the more beautifully succinct ways I know of to describe this. The moral hole of the right wing (and, well, I'm sure 'iammisc will again rend their shirt, but I've read their comment history and I've spent plenty of time in that swamp more generally, I'm confident in my assessment on both scales) is such that it assumes their opposite numbers must share it because there is no way their epistemic closure can countenance any alternative. And as you say, the left absolutely understands that pointing out reality won't matter--but lacks the capacity to communicate because to do so abrogates our core values. (There is an obvious path to, say, socialism in America, if it's only for white people. We know, because our right wing like socialism-for-white-people. They will fight their representatives to defend it. It's when other people get hold of it that there are objections. And that's a bridge we certainly won't cross for them.)
The divide is inescapable. For a while we could hope that kids wouldn't share their parents' behavior, but--well. Gamergate happened, the MRA movement happened, and they funneled their dupes straight into the machine.
It is sad.