How do we coexist with the 42.7%?

[Deepak]

The strongest claim you can make is that you don't understand it.

My question is - are you defending what you've quoted or not? Do you think that authoritarians should have access to government and be in positions of power? Is it an affront to their humanity if they aren't?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The strongest claim you can make is that you don't understand it.

My question is - are you defending what you've quoted or not? Do you think that authoritarians should have access to government and be in positions of power? Is it an affront to their humanity if they aren't?

I'm not referring to authoritarians, I'm referring to "right wingers". Your question doesn't relate to my posts.

 

[Deepak]

The strongest claim you can make is that you don't understand it.

My question is - are you defending what you've quoted or not? Do you think that authoritarians should have access to government and be in positions of power? Is it an affront to their humanity if they aren't?

I'm not referring to authoritarians, I'm referring to "right wingers". Your question doesn't relate to my posts.

You quoted a paragraph. I'm asking you to clarify what you're saying in relation to what you're quoting.

This would make a lot more sense to everyone if you could just clearly state your point.

 

[laughing dog]

What a world where the libertarian stands up for authoritarians.

Remember, liberals are the real fascists

I am trying to understand the position of those I'm conversing with. Not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to figure it out.

I have to figure it out before I can definitively say I agree or disagree.

To you that is standing up for authoritarians. So we're not supposed to try to understand where other people stand?

I only use the term "right winger" because that is what is used in this thread. To me, it doesn't mean much. Some of those covered by the term love government, and some hate government. Conversely, some of those covered by the term "left wing" love government, and some hate government. I am not trying to understand "right wing" or "left wing" but the people I respond to. And even if I am defending either wing, who says which part of that wing I am defending?

I am trying to figure your position, so I will approach it like you do and ask

Are libertarians really human?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!"

Any Bernie fanatics who would stay away from the polls two times in a row, after what we've seen since Jan 2017, should move to Thumbsuck Island.

On the contrary, they didn't stay away, but voted for Trump (the largest number of them), because he promised to "bring back the jobs" from China just like Bernie was promising. And they'll probably do the same this November.

Remember, it's all about "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" so obviously the 2nd choice for them is Trump, if they can't have Bernie.

 

[prideandfall]

In order for you to allow someone on the ballot or allow someone to vote (depending on the option chosen) they would need to be tested somehow. Those who fail the test don't get to participate. Will there be anyone who you disagree with who could pass your test?

and of course the issue is that testing, no matter how rigorous you try to make the standards, will almost instantly be either abused or misapplied in order to attack a given ideology, so that doesn't actually work either.
that's the problem with notions of how things "could be" if only everyone cooperated on certain basic premises: it falls flat in the face of the reality that everyone doesn't.

but as for your question, there's two very different notions of what "disagree with" could mean.

here is an example of a fierce disagreement on a major issue that i am OK with:
"i think health care should be a foundational right available to everyone, and in recognition of the fact our civilization has ample resources to supply such a thing find no justifiable reason why we shouldn't implement a structure that provides it to everyone"
vs
"i think market capitalism as both an economic system and as social darwinism is the best way to run society, therefor health care should be determined by what you can afford and if you can't afford health care you should die"

here is an example of a fierce disagreement on a major issue that i am not OK with:
"i think health care should be a foundational right available to everyone, and in recognition of the fact our civilization has ample resources to supply such a thing find no justifiable reason why we shouldn't implement a structure that provides it to everyone"
vs
"lynch all the niggers!"

up until about the mid 80s the two parties in this country and the ideology that drove them were more or less usually the first example. since the late 90s it's become more and more the second example.
you can't have functioning social systems when the entirety of government is a cojoined twin, with one half trying to figure out how to stop the grease fire that is consuming the kitchen and the other half is a drooling fuckwit trying to finger-bang the hamster

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Interesting. Aside from the fact that the second position in your first dichotomy does not reflect the position of the other, you did a pretty good job of explaining who should be allowed to participate and who should not.

One further question. If you think that blatant unthinking racists should be excluded, does that include Gazi Kodzo? Mind, he does agree with socialized medicine, the illustrated example of the first half of both dichotomies. He also is a vehement and blatant racist with a visceral hatred of all white people.

 

[Elixir]

I am trying to figure your position

That IS the position of Libbertardians.
They don't have any position that can be assailed for anything. That's what makes them superior to everyone else.
Just ask them.
You could spend the next thirty pages of this thread trying to unravel the difference between authoritarians and right wingers, and opposing each of them to The Lib'ruls. And at the end you'll be none the wiser about Libbertardians - they will have told you nothing about themselves because they have nothing to say for themselves, just criticism of everyone else.

 

[Angry Floof]

Interesting. Aside from the fact that the second position in your first dichotomy does not reflect the position of the other, you did a pretty good job of explaining who should be allowed to participate and who should not.

One further question. If you think that blatant unthinking racists should be excluded, does that include Gazi Kodzo? Mind, he does agree with socialized medicine, the illustrated example of the first half of both dichotomies. He also is a vehement and blatant racist with a visceral hatred of all white people.

It's not a matter of who. It's a matter of ideology. It's why "Nazi" is still a bad word no matter how many right wing Americans have been infected by white supremacism.

But, hey, whatever it takes to avoid examining inhumane, stunted delusion and instead deflect with false claims of prejudice against a group of people. I mean, seriously, how would you discern the difference between us vs. them mentality and a realistic understanding of hate ideology?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am trying to figure your position

That IS the position of Libbertardians.sic

Ironically, without meaning to, you actually made a point.

In today's world, we're not supposed to understand those we disagree with. We're supposed to assume they hold their views for malicious reasons, attack them for those reasons, and then "cancel" them, or at least try to. That I'm actually trying to understand another person, such as by asking prideandfall to elaborate on how one might establish a minimum threshold for political participation, or asking Angry Floof if he thinks those who disagree with him are even human, I am trying to understand their position.

That just isn't done these says. Only weirdos like libertarians actually try to communicate with others instead of it always being a shouting match.

If you were to try asking questions, and asking them from the point of view of "I want to understand you" instead of "this is a gotcha question", you might get very interesting responses. Of course your peers will probably want to "cancel" you since civil discourse with the "other side" isn't approved of anymore.

 

[Toni]

I am trying to figure your position

That IS the position of Libbertardians.sic

Ironically, without meaning to, you actually made a point.

In today's world, we're not supposed to understand those we disagree with. We're supposed to assume they hold their views for malicious reasons, attack them for those reasons, and then "cancel" them, or at least try to. That I'm actually trying to understand another person, such as by asking prideandfall to elaborate on how one might establish a minimum threshold for political participation, or asking Angry Floof if he thinks those who disagree with him are even human, I am trying to understand their position.

That just isn't done these says. Only weirdos like libertarians actually try to communicate with others instead of it always being a shouting match.

If you were to try asking questions, and asking them from the point of view of "I want to understand you" instead of "this is a gotcha question", you might get very interesting responses. Of course your peers will probably want to "cancel" you since civil discourse with the "other side" isn't approved of anymore.

I think you have a point that it is too often the default to regard another person's different POV or political stance as being founded in ignorance or malevolence--and that we need to stop that.

I strongly disagree that it is only libertarians who actually try to communicate with others. I know plenty who do not try to communicate when it comes to the part of communication known as 'listening' or 'hearing' what others have to say. And plenty of people from all political POV who truly do attempt to understand where others with opposing view points are coming from.

My observation is that at least for some people, this willingness/unwillingness to listen and hear others, even if you don't agree is strongly influenced by how recently and how much people have watched/listened to say, Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. This was the case with my father and myself. We actually had the same core values: hard work and strong efforts should be rewarded; everyone should be given a fair and equal shot. Family was important. People were important. We should respect the land (and water and air). Lying/stealing/cheating/violent behavior was wrong.

We just differed sharply on who was responsible for what most of the time and what being treated fairly meant. Very sharply.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We just differed sharply on who was responsible for what most of the time and what being treated fairly meant. Very sharply.

I find that if you are able to communicate, you will find that to be the case. Most of the time those who disagree with you aren't twirling their mustaches or rubbing their hands while making a sinister laugh about how much harm their position will cause. Usually it comes down to "I think program A will solve this societal problem" and "I don't agree, I think program B will solve it instead."

 

[bilby]

There are already a number of tests you must pass in order to vote in US elections. The idea that any test would be impossible to implement without gross injustice is simply false - it's true of many possible tests, but not of all. For example, few people object to disenfranchising citizens who are 'too young'.

Right now, voters must also pass the 'are you a resident of this voting district' test, which has been deliberately, systematically, and maliciously manipulated to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters. But to remove that test would invite even worse abuse of the system.

The US voting system is fucking horrible. It deliberately gives a minority of voters disproportionate power and influence - by giving equal representation not to individual voters, but to states. There's just possibly a justification for this in the Senate (though it's pretty flimsy to argue that minority viewpoints shouldn't be discriminated against in a democracy, given that that's the entire purpose of democracy); But when you only have one President, there's simply no sane reason to weight some votes more heavily than others, on the grounds that those voters live in regions of low population density.

The "benefit" of first-past-the-post voting is that it drives the system towards having only two parties, and thereby ensures that the larger party has sufficient power to get things done. This is a bad thing - a system where nothing can get done without compromise may be slower to change, but that means it's slower to fuck things up. Any changes that can only be implemented by forcing through legislation over the protests of the opposition party is probably a bad idea - and if it's not, then the voters can decide to give the party proposing that change a larger share of power at the next election.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are right wingers even human?

Two of 'em grabbed my cousin Tad when he was with his mom at the food bank. They started to suck blood from his neck!

Fake News!

There's no way they would want the blood of anyone at a food bank.

Now, a church kitchen is another matter...

 

[Elixir]

Are right wingers even human?

All too human.
History Will Judge The Complicit

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

(though it's pretty flimsy to argue that minority viewpoints shouldn't be discriminated against in a democracy, given that that's the entire purpose of democracy)

Well, that's the biggest problem; we are not a Democracy and never have been. We are a Republic.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I have noticed that a lot of T's fans use the expression "That's just how he is." This indicates that they do not personally condone boorishness, abuse, cussing, and bullying, but that they otherwise approve of our emperor's policies. But it seems to me that substantial numbers of his admirers delight in his cruelty and grotesque behavior. They wanted someone to call Hillary a nasty woman to her face. They were fine with T when he implied that protesters at his rallies should be beaten so thoroughly that they'd have to be carried out on stretchers -- that, somehow, that's the good old American way.
I have a long-time friend who's a Trumpanista. We do not discuss anything political unless she brings it up. She called me a few nights ago and was carrying on about the demonstrations over George Floyd's murder -- clearly, she had Trump's viewpoint on the people in the streets ("thugs", without the saving grace of some "very fine people".) "I get so mad that I want to kill someone!" she said. "If I was younger, I think I'd drive out there in my car and..." This sentence didn't need to be finished. It's also why I never bring up politics, social issues, etc., etc. And yes, she has a better side, but a daily dose of Trump and Fox and selected social media has created an unhappy, resentful Third that helped sweep this man into office.

It's the nature of right wing authoritarianism. This is research, not my opinion. Read the ebook linked in my sig here if you haven't already. Right wing authoritarian followers are conditioned to defer to the authority figure(s) in all things, and when the authority says a certain group is bad and must be punished, the followers are programmed to go along with it as if it were their own opinion. Independent conscience is traded for the ease and safety of having a powerful figure take on the responsibility of deciding what to think about anything. All the follower has to do is join in the attack.

You might be right, but I think a large chunk of it is really just that they say that only to those who really question everything about his terrible behavior. When those people are in their in group, they actually approve. They know it's wrong, but they actually approve.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We just differed sharply on who was responsible for what most of the time and what being treated fairly meant. Very sharply.

I find that if you are able to communicate, you will find that to be the case. Most of the time those who disagree with you aren't twirling their mustaches or rubbing their hands while making a sinister laugh about how much harm their position will cause. Usually it comes down to "I think program A will solve this societal problem" and "I don't agree, I think program B will solve it instead."

That used to be the case. These days the people that support the President the most are angry that Fox News is going liberal and demand carriage of OAN on Sat/Cable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[That just isn't done these says. Only weirdos like libertarians actually try to communicate with others instead of it always being a shouting match.

You consider being a contrarian as communication?

 

[Jarhyn]

[That just isn't done these says. Only weirdos like libertarians actually try to communicate with others instead of it always being a shouting match.

You consider being a contrarian as communication?

To be fair, even dropping your pants and shitting on the floor is a communication. It is merely the sort of communication that generally invokes getting thrown the fuck out and prosecuted heavily.