Divided and Conquered

[Michigan Swampbuck]

It sure seems to me, based on the comments in this thread, that the division and the polarization run deep. It could be the most sensible comments, but it will be placed on one side or the other, and this thread seems to show that.

[TokenLiberal]

Indeed. As I said earlier, often we can't even agree on the facts anymore. The reason I ask FCD to explain why he makes value judgments like "X is evil" is that I'm hoping he will provide facts that his belief is based on. Then we can hopefully, based on those facts, agree on whether or not the belief is warranted. I'm fully willing to acknowledge the evilness of Soros (I have no stake in this, and dislike billionaires as a rule) if he backs up his claim with real evidence.

Generally, I'm on the side of the facts. For this crime, I've been called gullible, naive, stupid, an ideologue, and so on by people on ATS. Here, people are less rude but treat me with the same contempt. You, MichiganSwampbuck, are actually the only person so far that has afforded me the basic courtesy of actually listening and trying to understand my perspective, which I appreciate. Usually, all anyone seems to want to do is get their talking points in and when I ask follow-up questions they stop responding. It's hard to find common ground that way.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

Indeed. As I said earlier, often we can't even agree on the facts anymore. The reason I ask FCD to explain why he makes value judgments like "X is evil" is that I'm hoping he will provide facts that his belief is based on. Then we can hopefully, based on those facts, agree on whether or not the belief is warranted. I'm fully willing to acknowledge the evilness of Soros (I have no stake in this, and dislike billionaires as a rule) if he backs up his claim with real evidence.

Generally, I'm on the side of the facts. For this crime, I've been called gullible, naive, stupid, an ideologue, and so on by people on ATS. Here, people are less rude but treat me with the same contempt. You, MichiganSwampbuck, are actually the only person so far that has afforded me the basic courtesy of actually listening and trying to understand my perspective, which I appreciate. Usually, all anyone seems to want to do is get their talking points in and when I ask follow-up questions they stop responding. It's hard to find common ground that way.

You were talking some sense to me, and I have been trying not to let my personal biases or general attitude prevent me from determining facts where I can. It would be so easy to blow someone off who isn't on "my team", so to speak.

Perhaps the handle you use, Token Liberal, flips a switch and triggers people. I have to admit, I've gotten pretty sensitive about trolls and the Devil's advocate, contrarian types. People are just so fed up with everything, it seems.

ETA: Like I was trying to get at, even if we have evidence and facts on our side, we will get placed in one camp or the other. It is so 1 or 0, this or that, with no other position to take, no third option.

[FCD]

I don't feel the need to explain facts which should be plainly obvious to the average educated person.  Nor, do I feel the need to define my definition of 'evil' when it comes to a person like Soros who represents about 0.0000000001% of the Earth's population.  And, it should be plainly obvious why Soros represents such a infinitesimally small portion of the population...(i.e. because he has made his money at every single one of those people's expense).  Soros has knowingly taken the food from needy people's mouths in his quest, not for money, but for control and 'because he could'. 

Furthermore, by providing exhaustive facts, which people (here) can easily go research for themselves, I would not only be wasting my time, but also providing other "fun" little red herrings to debate along the way...which I have exactly zero intention of doing.

If people want to view George Soros as their hero, then so be it.  I won't, and I will continue to serve him up as an example of "evil" when and where I see fit.

Some background (not on Soros) - There are people who like to engage others by saying things like..."I don't understand why you say X, please explain to me why you think this".  This is just a baiting tactic.  I don't mind explaining things when it is apparent that the person asking the question truly doesn't understand something, but I take exception to explaining things to educated people who clearly do understand a statement and just want to gather more data points to argue about.

Back to Soros...there is ample information out there to form an opinion on this man and his actions in the financial markets.  If I were to ask a question, I would simply ask..."Please go find some information which paints this man as a savior and an angel of mankind".  Normally I would think republicans and democrats alike could agree on the evil of Soros, but for the fact that Soros funds so many democratic radical initiatives that many democrats openly love the guy while secretly hating him behind closed doors for the exact same reasons I do.  They just won't admit it.  I'm not pointing fingers here, but rather making a statement.  If that shoe fits, then wear it.  

Again, if people want to love and worship George Soros and ignore what he has done to economies (around the globe, mind you, not just once but countless times), then so be it.  Those decisions belong to the person harboring those opinions.  And, they will stand to defend them in the end.

TL, to you directly.  ...  You say...

...   The reason I ask FCD to explain why he makes value judgments like "X is evil" is that I'm hoping he will provide facts that his belief is based on. Then we can hopefully, based on those facts, agree on whether or not the belief is warranted.  ...

Are you the arbitrator of whether beliefs are 'warranted'?  You get to decide whose beliefs are warranted and whose are not??  Do you see how completely asinine and arrogant a statement like that looks?  Had I been remotely willing to engage your question previously, I most certainly am no longer willing to after reading a statement like that, especially given that I am apparently replying to the Creator himself seeking his exalted approval.

Have a nice evening.

edit - And Soros doesn't fund those radical initiatives because he's a democrat or because he loves liberal democrat ideology; this is one of the more infuriating things about Soros. He hates democrats. The reason he does it is because it creates chaos (something he profits from), and it creates anarchy (something he also profits greatly from). He doesn't give one single shit about democrats, but democrats can't see this (apparently). He just uses democrats because he sees how radical some of them can be and these same people will gladly take his money and act out on their crazy, extremist, ideas accordingly. Then...Soros shorts the whole market and takes ALL their money, along with everyone else's. And someone asks why this guy is 'evil'??? I dunno, maybe do the research yourself and then ask why.

[TokenLiberal]

You were talking some sense to me, and I have been trying not to let my personal biases or general attitude prevent me from determining facts where I can. It would be so easy to blow someone off who isn't on "my team", so to speak.

An admirable quality that I wish more people had.

Perhaps the handle you use, Token Liberal, flips a switch and triggers people. I have to admit, I've gotten pretty sensitive about trolls and the Devil's advocate, contrarian types. People are just so fed up with everything, it seems.

Yeah. I was hoping the username would trigger people but not in that way, rather I was hoping it would make them want to talk to me. I am on a more liberal-dominated forum as well, and when conservatives show up there I always have lots of questions. This has started some great discussions where mutual understanding was reached, and even some common ground was found. I assumed it would be the same here. I want more of that, and want to provide it to others. But maybe I'm the weird one. As you said, it's easier, more comfortable to dismiss opposing views out of hand.

[TokenLiberal]

I don't feel the need to explain facts which should be plainly obvious to the average educated person.  Nor, do I feel the need to define my definition of 'evil' when it comes to a person like Soros who represents about 0.0000000001% of the Earth's population.  And, it should be plainly obvious why Soros represents such a infinitesimally small portion of the population...(i.e. because he has made his money at every single one of those people's expense).  Soros has knowingly taken the food from needy people's mouths in his quest, not for money, but for control and 'because he could'. 

Furthermore, by providing exhaustive facts, which people (here) can easily go research for themselves, I would not only be wasting my time, but also providing other "fun" little red herrings to debate along the way...which I have exactly zero intention of doing.

If people want to view George Soros as their hero, then so be it.  I won't, and I will continue to serve him up as an example of "evil" when and where I see fit.

Some background (not on Soros) - There are people who like to engage others by saying things like..."I don't understand why you say X, please explain to me why you think this".  This is just a baiting tactic.  I don't mind explaining things when it is apparent that the person asking the question truly doesn't understand something, but I take exception to explaining things to educated people who clearly do understand a statement and just want to gather more data points to argue about.

Back to Soros...there is ample information out there to form an opinion on this man and his actions in the financial markets.  If I were to ask a question, I would simply ask..."Please go find some information which paints this man as a savior and an angel of mankind".  Normally I would think republicans and democrats alike could agree on the evil of Soros, but for the fact that Soros funds so many democratic radical initiatives that many democrats openly love the guy while secretly hating him behind closed doors for the exact same reasons I do.  They just won't admit it.  I'm not pointing fingers here, but rather making a statement.  If that shoe fits, then wear it.  

Again, if people want to love and worship George Soros and ignore what he has done to economies (around the globe, mind you, not just once but countless times), then so be it.  Those decisions belong to the person harboring those opinions.  And, they will stand to defend them in the end.

TL, to you directly.  ...  You say...


Are you the arbitrator of whether beliefs are 'warranted'?  You get to decide whose beliefs are warranted and whose are not??  Do you see how completely asinine and arrogant a statement like that looks?  Had I been remotely willing to engage your question previously, I most certainly am no longer willing to after reading a statement like that, especially given that I am apparently replying to the Creator himself seeking his exalted approval.

Have a nice evening.

edit - And Soros doesn't fund those radical initiatives because he's a democrat or because he loves liberal democrat ideology; this is one of the more infuriating things about Soros.  He hates democrats.  The reason he does it is because it creates chaos (something he profits from), and it creates anarchy (something he also profits greatly from).  He doesn't give one single shit about democrats, but democrats can't see this (apparently).  He just uses democrats because he sees how radical some of them can be and these same people will gladly take his money and act out on their crazy, extremist, ideas accordingly.  Then...Soros shorts the whole market and takes ALL their money, along with everyone else's.  And someone asks why this guy is 'evil'???  I dunno, maybe do the research yourself and then ask why.

It's ok if you don't want to defend your claim. You obviously don't have to. You might be used to people agreeing with you without any sort of pushback, but that's not going to be me. I can understand that this would be annoying to you. 

The problem when you just express value judgments and refuse to elaborate, especially when you're in a discussion with someone who often disagrees with you, is that there is no hope of any fruitful discussion that way. We would end up talking past each other. Things that may seem to you like they should be "plainly obvious to an educated person", are not at all obvious to me, and vice versa. The only way we reach mutual understanding is if we take the time to answer each other's questions and substantiate our claims.

An example of how this worked the other way is that I said campaign finance law can't be changed until SCOTUS comes around about their money = speech mantra. This is something that is "plainly obvious to an educated person" in my book. But it clearly wasn't plainly obvious to you, and you think reversing citizens united is some silly democrat talking point. I then went on to substantiate the claim. Do you see how pointless and counter-productive it would have been for me to instead refuse to elaborate and just say "this should be plainly obvious to an educated person"?

[FCD]

MSB said...

Perhaps the handle you use, Token Liberal, flips a switch and triggers people.  ...

I want to address this statement.  This is not directed at you, MSB, but rather in response to your statement.

First of all, I don't like the word "triggered".  It sounds immature and ignorant.  I don't get triggered.  There are, however, things which get my attention, and usually with good reason which I am happy to explain.  The alias "Token Liberal" does not trigger me, nor does it make me angry.  However, it does generate a mental image in my mind, and this is what I wanted to respond to (because I think MSB made an interesting observation).

Again, the alias does not trigger me in any way, nor does it make me angry (which is how I view being 'triggered').  What it does say to me though is..."challenge".  It evokes an image of someone who wants to challenge anyone who isn't a 'liberal', and it implies that the person believes they are in the minority and everyone else is on the opposite side of the ideological 'fence'.

So, while I am not "triggered" by the alias, I am suspect of an underlying agenda from an individual with such a moniker.  By one 'token' I applaud honesty and declaring one's position clearly.  And, by another 'token', I also feel like every discussion is going to lead into a..."Please explain (with exhaustive facts) why you believe X, or Y, or Z, and I will argue each one of them point by point."...discussion.  Frankly, that's tiring and not enjoyable; I can do that at work (not over politics though).  If I need to write a heavily sourced bibliography for every statement I make, well, I'll just go back to work where I do this all the time.  Either agree, or disagree; doesn't really matter to me.  But here's what does matter...the challenge.  Why?  Because I feel like if I don't respond (to the challenge) then the person making the challenge "wins" (and very candidly, I feel like this is exactly why some people do this too).  I don't come here to win.  I'm done winning when I leave work.

So what have I observed here?  Questions which members already know the answers to and itemized rebuttals...point by point.  Not naming names or anything.  LOL!

So what's in a name?  I can only say what's in mine.  "FCD", for those who don't know, stands for 'Flying Clay Disk' (sic).  It's a play on words of sorts with a harmless meaning.  It simply means a round disc made of clay which flies through the air at a Trap and Skeet range.  The 'play' (on words) was only the "k" at the end of the word 'disc', just to make it different.  In truth, it was actually a typo when I first used it decades ago, and on that particular forum you couldn't change your alias without setting up a new account, so I just left it.  I've kept it that way ever since.

[FCD]

It's ok if you don't want to defend your claim. You obviously don't have to. You might be used to people agreeing with you without any sort of pushback, but that's not going to be me. I can understand that this would be annoying to you. 

...

Here you go again.  Baiting, baiting and more baiting.

See my response above this one.

You know, I'd really love to have a conversation with you which wasn't loaded with this constant...'prove it, or I'm right'...mentality.  Like I noted, I come here for discussion and sometimes to express MY opinion.  You don't have to agree with it.  And, I don't have to justify it to you...or anyone else.

It's late, and I have a medical procedure in the morning (so maybe I'm extra grumpy).

G'nite.

edit - BTW, you too are fully entitled to express your opinions (as you know, or should know). I don't have to agree with those, just like you don't have to agree with mine. Oh, and I'm still not going to engage you on Citizens United, no matter how many times you try!

[TokenLiberal]

If you are really here for discussion, you're not showing it. Maybe you just don't want to discuss politics, specifically?

Or maybe you don't know what a fruitful discussion between people who disagree with each other looks like. The "prove it or I'm right" thing is projection; you are imagining that I'm thinking that, but I'm not. It is completely normal and expected for someone to ask questions in order to better understand why the other party holds a certain opinion. That's not being pedantic, that's a necessary step in any fruitful discussion. You aren't used to it, because you live in echo chambers.

FCD: I like Trump
Liberal FCD: I dislike Trump
FCD: Ok. Now what?
Liberal FCD: I don't know, I guess this discussion is over

FCD: I like Trump
TokenLiberal: I dislike Trump. Why do you like him?
FCD: *Gives reasons for liking him*
TokenLiberal: *Disputes some of these reasons*
*A back and forth about reasons to (dis)like Trump*
Mutal understanding!

Which is the better discussion?

If you don't want to always be answering questions, feel free to ask some. I will be happy to answer them, without throwing a tantrum every time.

Oh, and I'm still not going to engage you on Citizens United, no matter how many times you try!

This is so strange to me. Why not!??! It's exceedingly likely that we would agree, since we both want stricter campaign finance laws. You can't talk about fixing US campaign finance law without mentioning Citizens United, and you mention campaign finance/corruption often so it's clearly an important issue to you. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obstructive or you genuinely don't understand the ruling.

@MSB, How do you feel about the CU ruling? Or is this subject off limits to you, too?

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I remember Citizens United, barely, so I looked it up and did a quick brief earlier when it was mentioned.

It seems good without looking at it very closely because I believe in limits on campaign donations and other ways of influencing politicians. But I won't commit to that topic as I haven't looked it over and formed an opinion.