61–70 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
What he means is that there is vastly more pressure on people to align with the Democratic party than the Republican party. It's hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with this in good faith. It was already true ten years ago, and the amount of pressure has increased by an order of magnitude in the last two years. Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
What he means is that there is vastly more pressure on people to align with the Democratic party than the Republican party. It's hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with this in good faith. It was already true ten years ago, and the amount of pressure has increased by an order of magnitude in the last two years. Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United…
> Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United States effectively sets the tone for all political discussions in Europe and many in Asia.
is bonkers. How does the Democratic party set international "tones"?
Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
Like when someone is arguing that people with your attributes should be killed or should have less rights than other people you don't have a choice in the matter. If you have a coworker yelling about how gay people are inferior to their openly gay coworker, there's no getting out of choosing a side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a whole body of political science literature that would heartily debate that stance. at most, political discourse and religious discourse grew up together and influenced each other, but to say one is based on the other is a rhetorical diversion at best. gay marriage shouldn't be predicated on privacy either. two people want equal protection under the law as any other two people who have enjoined their lives t…
> reproduction is not a state concern But population growth rate (or decline) is absolutely a concern of the state, and reproduction is a significant contributor to that. In fact, one could argue that if a state has an interest in providing health care (including things like contraception) then it must have an interest in reproduction too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, you don't have to think in sides. you can have a position and discuss your position with others. you don't have to think of them as your enemy, but rather your conversation partner, someone who can help you expand your perspective and perhaps even change your mind.
But practically, this is simply not true and the more important debate the less it is true. Simple historical example: slaveholder says Frederic Dougles should be slave. Douglas does not want to be whipped nor slave again. They are enemies, full stop. Not partners. Same examples exist with any other country history. Simple current example: Take the model abortion legislative currently proposed. It literally says that…
please don't simply "think of the children". think both openly and critically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or even simpler, stop being on a side, then you don't have to do mental tricks like "reversing the polarity". you can just see things for the way they are, without personal identity invested in the situation. this is exactly what being independent is.
Not having a side is a nice idea until your opponent forces you into a side. Then they complain when you defend yourself or you must give into their side. Like when someone is arguing that people with your attributes should be killed or should have less rights than other people you don't have a choice in the matter. If you have a coworker yelling about how gay people are inferior to their openly gay coworker, there's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day, all those discussions still result in actual decisions. In some cases, those decisions affect people in a very negative way. Given that, why shouldn't one see someone advocating for decisions that will negatively affect them as an enemy?
because it doesn't help in the long run, even if it soothes the feathers in the short.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But practically, this is simply not true and the more important debate the less it is true. Simple historical example: slaveholder says Frederic Dougles should be slave. Douglas does not want to be whipped nor slave again. They are enemies, full stop. Not partners. Same examples exist with any other country history. Simple current example: Take the model abortion legislative currently proposed. It literally says that…
frederick douglass espoused exactly the type of cross-racial and cross-ideological dialogue i'm bringing up here. if he can do it, being the subject of real subjugation and hatred, we can do it too sitting alone together in front of our little glass screens. please don't simply "think of the children". think both openly and critically.
Frederick Douglass represented the radical abolitionists of the time, not the mild "lets go listen to slaveholders" kind. Selected quotes from "cross-ideological dialogue" of Frederic Dougles:
> I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. [...] I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show [...] We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members
> If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning.
[flagged]
Let's have a look at the front page of poal.co, part of your daily reading to get outside the 'standard' filter bubble. OGRellik88 jewspiracy • 10h ago ANN NSFW Graphic How the ADL started. [652x844 - 142KB] (pic8.co) MrPotatoNigger askpoal • 5h ago How do we stop faggots from fucking monkeys? First it was HIV/AIDS and now Monkeypox... and it only affects one group. Clearly faggots fuck monkeys and they need to be st…
Why do you think I'm trying to convert anyone? And what do you think I'm trying to convert people to?
You have focused on 4 trees and missed the entire forest.