PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's true, I'm incapable of achieving the nuanced point of view of "leftists are tyrannical repressives."

Because you are one???

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Looks like I might have just got you confused with one of the small handful of other one-note drive-by trolls.

I have at least three notes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm just saying that it hasn't worked, it's pretty easy to see why it hasn't worked, and it's actually having the exact opposite effect. If you want to see the world you want to see, you're going to have to change tactics.

Big picture, I'd argue it has worked. Maybe that's a reason for the vast divide. I don't see the academic approach of avoiding things like labels, tribalism, identity politics, etc as having any value at all. It's completely out of touch with being human.

Then again I also don't see it being a significantly different method than it ever has been before.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

I have at least three notes.

Sometimes you even have four.

[nik-]

lets not get carried away

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Big picture, I'd argue it has worked. Maybe that's a reason for the vast divide. I don't see the academic approach of avoiding things like labels, tribalism, identity politics, etc as having any value at all. It's completely out of touch with being human.

I don't disagree that these things are part of "being human" - actually, they all fall under the heading of "tribalism". Ten thousand years ago, the tribalistic impulse wasn't just part of being human, it was probably a useful evolutionary trait that was selected for. But at this point, in the world we've built, I think that on balance it's very much a human failing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

That's the logical conclusion isn't it? If telling people that racism is bad, being a bigot is bad, oppressing people based on skin color is bad, etc. etc. is "repressive" and "tyrannical", then I guess we should all just kill ourselves.

C'mon, you don't honestly believe it's that simple, do you?

Progressive: "Bigotry is bad."

White guy: "Shut up!"

The issue isn't simply that there are good people who think bigotry is wrong and bad people who think it's okay. An ideology emerged out of the left in the last 20 years which asserts that racism happens because of A, B, and C, and the only remedies for it are D and E. The problem is that A, B, C, D, and E are political dogmas that are not widely agreed on even by liberal thinkers. Marxism, post-modernism, anti-Westernism, the blank slate, and identity politics are all political beliefs that can be challenged without resort to bigotry, that reasonable people can disagree about. But to do that you would actually have to be open to debate, which the ideologues of both the left and right are not open to (that's what makes them ideologues).

It's much easier to treat anyone who disagrees with you on any of a half-dozen issues as an incorrigible bigot than it is to engage and try to defend your opinions rationally.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Big picture, I'd argue it has worked. Maybe that's a reason for the vast divide. I don't see the academic approach of avoiding things like labels, tribalism, identity politics, etc as having any value at all. It's completely out of touch with being human.

Violence and murder are human. And yet we've managed to dramatically reduce them, along with a host of other destructive behaviours, over the centuries.

The modern left would have you believe progress is a matter of tearing down Western patriarchy and returning to our happy state of nature. They're wrong. Progress is a matter of using reason and self-control to overcome our savage nature. There's no question tribalism and group identity are ingrained in our nature. But our future welfare depends largely on how much progress we make in overcoming that nature. Otherwise there's only endless conflict in our future.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't disagree that these things are part of "being human" - actually, they all fall under the heading of "tribalism". Ten thousand years ago, the tribalistic impulse wasn't just part of being human, it was probably a useful evolutionary trait that was selected for. But at this point, in the world we've built, I think that on balance it's very much a human failing.

It might be a failing in some respects but I don't believe it's served it's usefulness. When it has, it'll be evolved out. Right now, it's still incredibly impactful and relevant to people.

You and Cliff (maybe Cliff more than you) rally against tribalism and "identity politics," but it's part of being human. This phase will evolve into something else, but you won't ever eliminate that need or that part of being human. Your view on it is more philosophical than practical.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Violence and murder are human. And yet we've managed to dramatically reduce them, along with a host of other destructive behaviours, over the centuries.

Those are behaviours though that are a result of tribalism. They aren't ingrained aspects of human nature.

They might have been primitive, but they served evolution well. They were not eliminated, they were replaced.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The modern left would have you believe progress is a matter of tearing down Western patriarchy and returning to our happy state of nature.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It might be a failing in some respects but I don't believe it's served it's usefulness. When it has, it'll be evolved out. Right now, it's still incredibly impactful and relevant to people.

But it takes, like, a hundred thousand years for an evolutionary trait to be "evolved out" like that. Society advanced at a much faster pace than evolution. We have to deal with our biology lagging behind, or we'll regress to the point where our society matches our baser instincts. Suffice it to say, that won't be good.

The fact that it's impactful and relevant to people is a tautology. Of course it is; as everyone agrees, it's a human trait. We can't help but be predisposed in that way. What I'm saying is that that is a bad thing. It's a drag on human progress. Your position seems to be, unless I'm missing something, that "it's natural, therefore it's normative". That's a pretty easy position to discard, if so.

[jammies]

Are we discussing the regressive left again for the nth time?

More importantly, all this talk of the USA being a democracy is so much blather and nonsense. The USA is a republic. It was specifically designed for the three branches of government to be somewhat disconnected from the common voter and his common, churlish ways.

The Senate was designed (as someone has mentioned) to, among other things, keep the slave states and free states in balance. (The proximate cause of the Civil War was the admission of Kansas as a free state and the election of Lincoln, who was against the recently passed Kansas-Nebraska act by which the South expected to extend slavery westward). Further, despite the fact it is the, by far, less democratic institution than the House of Representatives, it has the greater power in Congress.

The President is chosen by the electoral college, which is, again, not particularly democratic. The logic behind that college was to prevent the rule of the unwashed, not to promote democracy; the will of the people was to be moderated by the elites, not vice versa.

Lastly, the Supreme Court is filled with judges nominated by the President and approved by Congress. So two partly-democratic institutions populate a third, completely undemocratic institution.

Therefore, when people protest the outcome of this (or any election), rather than berating them for being sore losers, it might be more profitable to muse over whether or not the system they vote in actually does deny the power of their votes. Which it does. However, I suppose as long as you can vote for your local sheriff or dog-catcher, and for the senator that lets the most crumbs fall down to you from the government table, all's well. Get back to your iPads and lattes, you ungrateful wretches!

[RougeUnderoos]

The rudest, most belligerent, divisive and disliked candidate in history won the election less than a week ago after threatening violence if he didn't win, and the analysis that "the left" isn't polite enough. Sheesh.

"You just don't understand his base...".

I don't. I never will. Far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants this guy to be the President is probably beyond saving with politeness, soothsaying, and understanding.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by jammies

Are we discussing the regressive left again for the nth time?

More importantly, all this talk of the USA being a democracy is so much blather and nonsense. The USA is a republic. It was specifically designed for the three branches of government to be somewhat disconnected from the common voter and his common, churlish ways.

The Senate was designed (as someone has mentioned) to, among other things, keep the slave states and free states in balance. (The proximate cause of the Civil War was the admission of Kansas as a free state and the election of Lincoln, who was against the recently passed Kansas-Nebraska act by which the South expected to extend slavery westward). Further, despite the fact it is the, by far, less democratic institution than the House of Representatives, it has the greater power in Congress.

The President is chosen by the electoral college, which is, again, not particularly democratic. The logic behind that college was to prevent the rule of the unwashed, not to promote democracy; the will of the people was to be moderated by the elites, not vice versa.

Lastly, the Supreme Court is filled with judges nominated by the President and approved by Congress. So two partly-democratic institutions populate a third, completely undemocratic institution.

Therefore, when people protest the outcome of this (or any election), rather than berating them for being sore losers, it might be more profitable to muse over whether or not the system they vote in actually does deny the power of their votes. Which it does. However, I suppose as long as you can vote for your local sheriff or dog-catcher, and for the senator that lets the most crumbs fall down to you from the government table, all's well. Get back to your iPads and lattes, you ungrateful wretches!

That's it. Common? Churlish?

I'm going to go home and cry in my Saltwater Brewery IPA.

I'm devastated , Jammies.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The fact that it's impactful and relevant to people is a tautology. Of course it is; as everyone agrees, it's a human trait. We can't help but be predisposed in that way. What I'm saying is that that is a bad thing. It's a drag on human progress. Your position seems to be, unless I'm missing something, that "it's natural, therefore it's normative". That's a pretty easy position to discard, if so.

My point was that it's hard, which you seem to agree with.

You're asking the left to abandon tribalism because the left isn't being nice enough when they say "if tribalism stays, they need to be equal and there's no room for tribes that say otherwise." Working towards ending the need for tribes (even if it seems like a whole bunch of little ones pop up) is a much closer step than suggesting we do nothing if we can't abandon it outright.

You're never going to get the change you're looking for, not in your life time. It seems counter-productive to rally against the change that heads that direction. It doesn't take an academic to see that equality leads to less division.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

So some colleagues and I ordered Trump hats as a gag the day of the election. We didn't think he would win so we bought them for posterity and to mark the end of a circus. The package got smashed by someone in the postal office before it was delivered on Saturday in NY. Contents still ok apparently, but someone must have figured out what it was.

I just ordered up a dozen blue "Make Alberta Great Again" hats from the local embroider for myself and some like minded *** hole friends. Triggering imminent.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The rudest, most belligerent, divisive and disliked candidate in history won the election less than a week ago after threatening violence if he didn't win, and the analysis that "the left" isn't polite enough. Sheesh.

"You just don't understand his base...".

The rudest, most belligerent, divisive and disliked candidate in history won the election less than a week ago against all predictions because his campaign flipped several long-time Democratic strongholds, often improving on Romney by 10 points or more, by using an economic strategy and the analysis is that he only won because of racists, xenophobes and misogynist?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

That's it. Common? Churlish?

You forgot unwashed!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The rudest, most belligerent, divisive and disliked candidate in history won the election less than a week ago against all predictions because his campaign flipped several long-time Democratic strongholds, often improving on Romney by 10 points or more, by using an economic strategy and the analysis is that he only won because of racists, xenophobes and misogynist?

He was certainly the candidate of the racists, xenophobes and misogynists. That's not up for debate.

I really have no idea how he won and didn't think he had a chance, so my analysis ain't worth the paper it isn't printed on, but he wouldn't have won without that crowd.

Also, economic strategy? They don't have any strategies or plans. That's quickly becoming a bit of a problem for them.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

He was certainly the candidate of the racists, xenophobes and misogynists. That's not up for debate.

I really have no idea how he won and didn't think he had a chance, so my analysis ain't worth the paper it isn't printed on, but he wouldn't have won without that crowd.

Also, economic strategy? They don't have any strategies or plans. That's quickly becoming a bit of a problem for them.

What's the matter Rouge- MAGA not enough for you?

It will be aaaaammmmaaaaaazzzzzziiinnnggg. That's all we need to know .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk