Where is the Common Ground?

JoeMorgue said:
I'm being dead serious here but what does, in a democracy, "marginalize" mean that isn't just straight up voter fraud/disenfranchisement.

Now if your opinion is that one side has committed these acts and you are simply undoing them, fine that's perfectly valid.

But there is an air of... sour grapes to the whole "Oh we'll win as soon as the system is fair" argument.

You do have to ask yourself, if even as a hypothetical, what happens when you even the playing field... and you still lose?

So hypothetically... you get rid of gerrymandering. You get rid of voter ID laws. You create a perfectly fair electoral system over an infinite plane of uniform gravity in a friction-less vacuum and you assume perfectly spherical voters.... and you still lose. What then?
Click to expand...

It means turn out the vote and make the majority count. I am very much arguing that there's cheating going on on the GOP side. This cheating is systematic and designed to overvalue the votes of some while undervaluing the votes of others. A clear tell of this is the fact that the GOP can't seem to win the popular vote but still wind up with the Presidency.

On the state level, gerrymandering has the same effect, as have the various programs of voter disenfranchisement and suppression that have been developed by GOP operatives.

Once these efforts to cheat the system are removed, the GOP will never win an election again - at least until they change their vicious policies - thus marginalizing the racist Trumpist vote.
 
ahhell said:
You can't even ask if some of the gender differences in STEM is not just due to discrimination against women.
Click to expand...

ahhell said:
He was publicly shamed and fired.
Click to expand...
Yes that guy. What I have read of the memo was pretty badly mischaracterized at the in the media.
Click to expand...

The memo also included stuff like "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences)."

What kind of "IQ differences" do some think "the left" wants to deny? See the bigoted unstated assumptions packed into there?

This person was not simply asking if some of the gender differences in STEM could be biological.
 
kellyb said:
The memo also included stuff like "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences)."

What kind of "IQ differences" do some think "the left" wants to deny? See the bigoted unstated assumptions packed into there?

This person was not simply asking if some of the gender differences in STEM could be biological.
Click to expand...

"The Left" is not just rational unbiased and non-bigoted liberals. So it is more accurate to start with some parts of "the Left".
As a part of "the Left", there are other parts of "the Left", that I disagree with and I will admit that. I try not to be tribal and biased simply because it is "the Left". Right now "the Right" is worse so it is not a claim of being equal. "The Right" is worse, but that won't stop me from speaking out against parts of "the Left".

So you want to concentrate on fighting "the Right"?!!
I fight all "flanks" from a position on "the Center(-Left)", because sometimes I am not on "the Left", sometimes I am in "the Center" and a few times I am on "the Right".
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
"The Left" is not just rational unbiased and non-bigoted liberals. So it is more accurate to start with some parts of "the Left".
As a part of "the Left", there are other parts of "the Left", that I disagree with and I will admit that. I try not to be tribal and biased simply because it is "the Left". Right now "the Right" is worse so it is not a claim of being equal. "The Right" is worse, but that won't stop me from speaking out against parts of "the Left".
Click to expand...

Yes the left refuses to accept the intellectual inferiority of certain races/sexes is clearly one of the biggest marks against it.
 
theprestige said:
That just sounds like protecting the integrity of our bodily fluids. Which is legit crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I don't get that. IMV, the institutions don't really matter, nor should be protected if they dont have integrity.
 
Distracted1 said:
Every other time I can think of from history, the people arguing that they must "protect our institutions" turned out to be the villains.
From your posting history, I land pretty much on your "side", but that phrasing makes me a little nervous.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
I KNOW You are definitely right on a few occasions. A better phrasing would be to protect the integrity of our institutions.
Click to expand...


I chose that wording to attempt to have it resonate with conservatives actually. That it elicits trepidation from non-conservatives gives a kind of appropriate insight into some of the difficulties.

You're right that it has historically been employed as an appeal to tradition fallacy and to uphold abhorrent practices such as slavery. But if it isn't being used in that fashion (the institutes are actually worth preserving on their merits, not simply because they've been around) then the idea isn't inherently negative. Representative democracy, apolitical civil servants, avoiding even the appearance of conflicts of interest, are all worthwhile concepts that are under attack right now from the GOP, to a degree that's legitimately harmful.

Not giving in to their attacks and this tactic is more important than appearing reasonable. Being reasonable is much more important than appearing it. Where genuine common ground can be found, great, but them calling something 'common ground' does not make it so. The GOP, as a whole and especially the leadership will the full support of 90% of their base, are not arguing nor behaving in good faith. Even to each other, their deals and promises are currently worthless. It is time for them to search for the common ground and convince everyone else.
 
tyr_13 said:
I chose that wording to attempt to have it resonate with conservatives actually. That it elicits trepidation from non-conservatives gives a kind of appropriate insight into some of the difficulties.

You're right that it has historically been employed as an appeal to tradition fallacy and to uphold abhorrent practices such as slavery. But if it isn't being used in that fashion (the institutes are actually worth preserving on their merits, not simply because they've been around) then the idea isn't inherently negative. Representative democracy, apolitical civil servants, avoiding even the appearance of conflicts of interest, are all worthwhile concepts that are under attack right now from the GOP, to a degree that's legitimately harmful.

Not giving in to their attacks and this tactic is more important than appearing reasonable. Being reasonable is much more important than appearing it. Where genuine common ground can be found, great, but them calling something 'common ground' does not make it so. The GOP, as a whole and especially the leadership will the full support of 90% of their base, are not arguing nor behaving in good faith. Even to each other, their deals and promises are currently worthless. It is time for them to search for the common ground and convince everyone else.
Click to expand...
I see, you were assuming GOP "conservatives" were really conservative, and not reactionary.
 
WilliamSeger said:
For at least the last three decades, right-wing propaganda has been devoted to driving a wedge down the country, hoping to end up with the bigger half and insisting that the only common ground has to be on their side of the divide. We can't get them to change the game; all we can do now is play to win it.
Click to expand...
No, the rules of the game need to be thrown away. There's no way to win when they literally write those rules.


theprestige said:
That just sounds like protecting the integrity of our bodily fluids. Which is legit crazy talk.
Click to expand...
I thought you hated analogies and decried their use. What do bodily fluids have anything to do with anything?
 
The Norseman said:
No, the rules of the game need to be thrown away. There's no way to win when they literally write those rules.



I thought you hated analogies and decried their use. What do bodily fluids have anything to do with anything?
Click to expand...
What is this younger generation coming to? Have classics such as Dr. Strangelove been relegated to the dustbin of history?
 
Common ground? lol, trump supporters (aka the cult) have no clue trump lies orders of magnitude more than any president in history : and they have no clue what order of magnitudes means until they look it up - just like trump would but he has no clue how to look it up.

Not to mention, oops, the biggest name calling president in history, and the president who has insulted the most people/places and things in history. Common ground, there has to be critical thinking skills to have common ground, the trump cult has none.
 
LSSBB said:
What is this younger generation coming to? Have classics such as Dr. Strangelove been relegated to the dustbin of history?
Click to expand...
Right?

People getting upset because "protect our institutions" sounds too fascist. But "protect the integrity of our institutions" doesn't sound obviously crazy?
 
LSSBB said:
What is this younger generation coming to? Have classics such as Dr. Strangelove been relegated to the dustbin of history?
Click to expand...
Mea culpa. One of the classics I have not seen.

Quote marks would have helped though.
 
Lurch said:
A Democratic President behaving as a national embarrassment on the world stage (sucking up to Putin at Helsinki, caging children, kowtowing to Kim, etc., etc., etc.) would suffer serious pushback from his Party and voters. But with Trump's supporters it's "America, **** yeah!"

The Dems ousted a Senator of theirs based on a single (adult) person's claims of sexual impropriety, but the Repubs elect "Grab 'em by the pussy!" Trump while he was also standing accused by more than a dozen women, *and* they tried to elect another creep for Senator accused of molesting teens.

Indeed. Where's the common ground?
Click to expand...

I think you’re right. Which is unfortunate. Republicans understand the game is about power. Democrats remove effective people from power over non-issues. It’s a shame Democrats are stupid enough to think that having a veneer of morality is more important than achieving their political goals.
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
I think you’re right. Which is unfortunate. Republicans understand the game is about power. Democrats remove effective people from power over non-issues. It’s a shame Democrats are stupid enough to think that having a veneer of morality is more important than achieving their political goals.
Click to expand...

The Democrats come by their positions because of issues of morality, particularly fairness. The Republicans are like the Inner Party in 1984: power solely for power's sake. And power is defined by the ability to hurt someone. In the Republican's case, brown people and the poor are who they like to hurt.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
The Democrats come by their positions because of issues of morality, particularly fairness. The Republicans are like the Inner Party in 1984: power solely for power's sake.
Click to expand...

Isn't that always the case, that your side has pure motives and your opponents sordid ones. Which is really the perfect excuse to not find common ground, because what common ground can be found with villains.

This thread is a perfect encapsulation of the hypocrisy and irony of the "skeptic" approach to politics.
 
Ziggurat said:
Isn't that always the case, that your side has pure motives and your opponents sordid ones. Which is really the perfect excuse to not find common ground, because what common ground can be found with villains.

This thread is a perfect encapsulation of the hypocrisy and irony of the "skeptic" approach to politics.
Click to expand...

Except when your side does have good motives and the other side has degenerated into a racist cult of personality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom