I don’t disagree with you, but at some point, most of these folks are grown ass adults with full cognitive capacity and the same access to information as the rest of us.
It’s a commitment and dedication to wilfull ignorance that is a conscious decision. They make the choice to ignore new information and ignore their own values and hypocrisy. They are 100% responsible for their own actions and treating them as victims invalidates their responsibilities and denies them personal accountability.
I don’t know that I’d call them subhuman, but they are hurting, killing, and oppressing people in active worship to the God of ignorance. These are bad people, and they don’t deserve your defense.
There was a time when you would have been right, but at this point, they are a part of the problem, not a symptom of it.
They are actively voting in and supporting people who are disrupting attempts to mitigate the actual issues. For example, every American should be against gerrymandering, as it is expressly anti-democratic, yet here we are voting in toxic people who are running interference on any effort to combat it.
This should be a bipartisan issue. I lived in Maryland for a long time and my district looked like an electrocuted spider, in favor of the Dems. Republicans should be against this, but here we are slamming our hand into the car door every time we try to make progress.
The people pulling the strings should be held accountable, no question. Pretending that these folks aren’t the problem is nice for diplomacy, but it’s no longer the case.
Trump became the president in 2016 despite losing the election. The system is rotten to its core. Conservatives are definitely not helping and their behavior should be shamed, but it’s crucial not to lose sight of the fact that the ideology they follow was deliberately created and propagated by the 0.001%.
We can hold them responsible for their actions and still recognize that they are victims of indoctrination. However, this would require the same intellectual honesty you chastise them for not having.
Straight to the personal attacks? Not really a great argument, particularly when the rest of it amounts to “NUH UH!!”.
I’m gonna need more than that. @[email protected] and I were having a pretty civil discussion, and I appreciate his points, though I personally disagree with them.
I’m sorry my comment didn’t meet your standards. I’m tired of reading the same intellectually vapid nonsense every day. “Why can’t these evil/ignorant/despicable fools just see the world the way I see it!?” You treat them the same way they treat us and expect them to have some kind of coming-to-jesus moment as a result. IMO, thinking this way requires the same level of cognitive dissonance as being a Trumpster. You need to read the room and see that your method doesn’t solve the problem you want it to solve. It exacerbates it. Instead of crying out to the world, wishing everyone else would do the hard work of expanding their understanding of political theory, history, and philosophy, maybe do that work yourself first.
Can you look beyond the harshness in the tone of my paragraph and take the constructive criticism I’m offering? This is what you’re asking them to do.
It’s weird. You’re asking me to accept constructive criticism, but a) you’re not offering any and b) you’re continuing with the ad hominem, and failing to offer an actual position despite it being very constructive feedback to your argument. You’re calling it “intellectually vapid nonsense” but you’re only offering logical fallacies. You’re just noise and hypocrisy.
My “understanding of political theory, history and philosophy” is backed by a career in the DC and NYC political sphere, including the White House, several campaigns, and extensive work with NPOs/NGOs. I’ve met and worked with 5 US Presidents, and more than 230 congresscritters on both sides of the aisle, and have personal commendations from the CEO, COO, and CTO of the USA so I feel pretty confident that I’ve got a well developed perspective. You’ve seen my work. So please enlighten me.
If you’ll notice in the previous postings, I was able to disagree with others while accepting their positions and without belittling them. Every assertion you’re making now is disproved before you even typed it, so I’m not sure why you’re rattling your cage. If you want to be a part of the discussion, and wish to bring about new information, I’m amenable to change my position, but your post is really just finger wagging and more of “NUH UH!!”.
I’m sorry my comment didn’t meet your standards. I’m tired of reading the same intellectually vapid nonsense every day.
Did you seriously type this passive aggressive nonsense and put it into the world? Do you hear yourself? Do better.
It’s actually not something I really knew about before, the WH gig, but these are actual positions that help to advise the President on specific matters related to their specialties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Technology_Officer_of_the_United_States (I can’t seem to find the others right now, but if I do, I’ll post them). I did some work on the Open Data Initiative that took it from policy to practical, and received some official recognition for it.
I don’t disagree with you, but at some point, most of these folks are grown ass adults with full cognitive capacity and the same access to information as the rest of us.
It’s a commitment and dedication to wilfull ignorance that is a conscious decision. They make the choice to ignore new information and ignore their own values and hypocrisy. They are 100% responsible for their own actions and treating them as victims invalidates their responsibilities and denies them personal accountability.
I don’t know that I’d call them subhuman, but they are hurting, killing, and oppressing people in active worship to the God of ignorance. These are bad people, and they don’t deserve your defense.
I understand what you’re saying. They are bad people. The average conservative’s behavior is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.
There was a time when you would have been right, but at this point, they are a part of the problem, not a symptom of it.
They are actively voting in and supporting people who are disrupting attempts to mitigate the actual issues. For example, every American should be against gerrymandering, as it is expressly anti-democratic, yet here we are voting in toxic people who are running interference on any effort to combat it.
This should be a bipartisan issue. I lived in Maryland for a long time and my district looked like an electrocuted spider, in favor of the Dems. Republicans should be against this, but here we are slamming our hand into the car door every time we try to make progress.
The people pulling the strings should be held accountable, no question. Pretending that these folks aren’t the problem is nice for diplomacy, but it’s no longer the case.
Trump became the president in 2016 despite losing the election. The system is rotten to its core. Conservatives are definitely not helping and their behavior should be shamed, but it’s crucial not to lose sight of the fact that the ideology they follow was deliberately created and propagated by the 0.001%.
We can hold them responsible for their actions and still recognize that they are victims of indoctrination. However, this would require the same intellectual honesty you chastise them for not having.
Straight to the personal attacks? Not really a great argument, particularly when the rest of it amounts to “NUH UH!!”.
I’m gonna need more than that. @[email protected] and I were having a pretty civil discussion, and I appreciate his points, though I personally disagree with them.
Read the room, man.
I’m sorry my comment didn’t meet your standards. I’m tired of reading the same intellectually vapid nonsense every day. “Why can’t these evil/ignorant/despicable fools just see the world the way I see it!?” You treat them the same way they treat us and expect them to have some kind of coming-to-jesus moment as a result. IMO, thinking this way requires the same level of cognitive dissonance as being a Trumpster. You need to read the room and see that your method doesn’t solve the problem you want it to solve. It exacerbates it. Instead of crying out to the world, wishing everyone else would do the hard work of expanding their understanding of political theory, history, and philosophy, maybe do that work yourself first.
Can you look beyond the harshness in the tone of my paragraph and take the constructive criticism I’m offering? This is what you’re asking them to do.
It’s weird. You’re asking me to accept constructive criticism, but a) you’re not offering any and b) you’re continuing with the ad hominem, and failing to offer an actual position despite it being very constructive feedback to your argument. You’re calling it “intellectually vapid nonsense” but you’re only offering logical fallacies. You’re just noise and hypocrisy.
My “understanding of political theory, history and philosophy” is backed by a career in the DC and NYC political sphere, including the White House, several campaigns, and extensive work with NPOs/NGOs. I’ve met and worked with 5 US Presidents, and more than 230 congresscritters on both sides of the aisle, and have personal commendations from the CEO, COO, and CTO of the USA so I feel pretty confident that I’ve got a well developed perspective. You’ve seen my work. So please enlighten me.
If you’ll notice in the previous postings, I was able to disagree with others while accepting their positions and without belittling them. Every assertion you’re making now is disproved before you even typed it, so I’m not sure why you’re rattling your cage. If you want to be a part of the discussion, and wish to bring about new information, I’m amenable to change my position, but your post is really just finger wagging and more of “NUH UH!!”.
Did you seriously type this passive aggressive nonsense and put it into the world? Do you hear yourself? Do better.
I’m not taking part in your argument with Timmy, I just want to know:
What does this mean?
It’s actually not something I really knew about before, the WH gig, but these are actual positions that help to advise the President on specific matters related to their specialties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Technology_Officer_of_the_United_States (I can’t seem to find the others right now, but if I do, I’ll post them). I did some work on the Open Data Initiative that took it from policy to practical, and received some official recognition for it.
Wow, interesting!