221–230 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you saw no similar behavior from the left in the preceding months to that event?
No, because there wasn't any. But go ahead and try to make that comparison, it'll be great to have your words on the record forever.
You’re essentially trying to threaten me if I dare disagree with your position. This is what I mean by jump the shark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very pleasant to people who don't discuss things with disengenuous, statistically inaccurate, sensationalist intentions, meant to further an ideological narrative.
Again, no one forced you to talk to that person. If you don't have anything constructive _and_ pleasant to say, then please wait for your mood to simmer before commenting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three protestors had guns all of which were in peoples vehicles or 'on capitol grounds'. Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol? WOW SUCH INSURRECTION What you're doing is literally the definition of sensationalism. You're overinflating statistically insignificant details to create an inaccurate narrative to promote your political agenda.
> Were any proven to be brought INTO the capitol? The fact that capitol police were completely overwhelmed by the insurrectionists , preventing arrests and searches in the Capitol presents rather strong proof issues with “inside the Capitol” (pretty much everything charged as “inside the Capitol” is based primarily on video evidence from the insurrectionists themselves , who were not shy about announcing their purpos…
The protestors left the capitol building at some point.
Any idea why?
It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…
Say "I support the AfD." (which is a bit like the German equivalent of saying "I support Trump") in Germany though and you are villified beyond belief and declared an Unperson, so while I may agree with your point in general, Germany certainly isn't a great example to support it.
It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…
I think it might be stronger than just "identity". Say I am a Republican, and you are a Democrat. That's still OK. We might not be able to have a conversation about politics, but we don't have to be at open warfare with each other. We can still coexist, we just cant talk about politics. But now comes an issue like, say, abortion. You feel like you have to have a country where abortion is freely available, and I feel…
It's an issue that easily admits being amplified by tribalism, but it doesn't have to be. We don't have to be at war over it. There exist compromises that aren't internally consistent but satisfy the moral intuitions of a large majority of the country.
Instead, we're at war -- not because of the issue itself, but because the issue is presented as one where we have to be at war about. They're not looking for a compromise, even among their partisans who would accept one. They're looking for a war, because that war is used to keep their opponents out of office on all issues.
It's an effective strategy for winning. Compromise doesn't make you run out to the polls. It doesn't matter how many parties there are. The winner is the one with the most votes. It's easiest to get the most votes when you believe that you are the only ones who are morally righteous, and everybody else is guilty of the one crime that every single person thinks is wrong all the time -- murder.
So I believe that it's not stronger than "identity". Identity is how you win elections. Abortion happens to be a great issue for sharply defining identity, but if it weren't that, it would be something else. And along with it comes every other issue that you've managed to agree with your partisans on: you win every argument for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One person was found with a gun on Capital grounds not inside the capital One insurrectionists was physically caught in the cordon on the grounds when law enforcement was clearing it with a firearm (Alberts), whether he had gone inside the building or not is uncertain (and immaterial). One insurrectionist (the DEA Agent Ibrahim) was caught and charged with having been on the grounds with a firearm based on photogra…
So no guns found inside the capitol? Not a single gun was found inside of the location where it's claimed it's claimed they were trying to overthrow? Not a single shot went off? Just poop on the walls? Can you overthrow a government by making it so gross with poo that they don't want to go back in the building? I don't believe this should be labeled an insurrection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually pretty left leaning and pro UBI and socialized healthcare and education But I'm also against lies and propaganda. And the narrative here is a perfect example of how identity politics are damaging to the country as a whole. This is equivalent to conservatives demonizing liberals for being 'communists'. Its inaccurate, wrong, polarizing, and the media and the people in power benefit while the rest of us ha…
Can you respond to this? > Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?". > The overall context of course was that many of these people believed themselves that they were there to prevent the electoral…
By protesting or by....insurrection?
> Whether you feel it was an insurrection or not, can we at least agree that it was an attack on democracy? These protestors may not have been armed, but they were threatening and intimidating as they chanted things like "hang mike Pence" and "where are you Nancy?".
As much as the BLM damaging the federal building in Vegas was an 'attack on democracy'?
That's a sensationalist interpretation.
It's most likely average people doing emotional things while angry and things got out of hand, not some organized conspiracy.
It's your ideology that wants to look for reasons to demonize them instead of just be understanding of them.
If we looked at everyone more charitably , even people we disagree with, I think we would advance much farther as a species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> weapons Sensationalism. There were no guns, which an insurrection would have. > A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal. Even your language: 'advance on Congress and stop the steal' is vague and non-specific, and could refer to a protest. They organized a protest that got out of hand. Sensationalism. I'm not really go…
> There were no guns, which an insurrection would have. Both halves of this sentence are wrong: there were guns, which an insurrection need not have. > I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views. Viewing the insurrectionists as insurrectionists isn't an extreme view. ---quote--- Half of Iowans say the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in an effort to derail the election certification pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You inadvertently provide an excellent example of what is causing polarization in America: Highlight the worst possible examples from the side you oppose while assigning the most charitable intentions to the side you support.
As far as I’m concerned, “attempted coup” is a burned bridge that will never be rebuilt. I’m not a member of the Democratic party, but there is nothing the Republican party can do to make me ever vote for them in the future. I hope that the party withers and dies, and that any remaining sensible people go and form a new party. Some offenses are simply unforgivable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization. Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?
Because when the points of meaningful disagreements are few, people often have a need to emphasise those points in order to justify their choice. I don't think this is by any means universal and it doesn't need to get hostile. Proportional systems often force parties to be prepared to cooperate or be left with no influence so even with starkly polarised views on certain issues it doesn't pay to get too hostile about…