Gay Forum

Magic J wrote:In all my ignorance, I know that statistics are tricky things, but the bottom line here is very simple: there are more real, flesh and blood people presenting to hospitals with COVID symptoms. I assume that the figures for that are routinely ignored.

I think some would say something like: "Those hospital figures are lies! It's all part of the COVID conspiracy!"

Magic J wrote:

Severelius wrote:Coronavirus cases are going up isn't just because they're testing more people.

In all my ignorance, I know that statistics are tricky things, but the bottom line here is very simple: there are more real, flesh and blood people presenting to hospitals with COVID symptoms. I assume that the figures for that are routinely ignored.

Not to mention the numbers of people dying... thousands every week in the UK (higher than at any point since May) and tens of thousands every week around the world (higher than at any previous point).

John27 wrote:

Magic J wrote:In all my ignorance, I know that statistics are tricky things, but the bottom line here is very simple: there are more real, flesh and blood people presenting to hospitals with COVID symptoms. I assume that the figures for that are routinely ignored.

I think some would say something like: "Those hospital figures are lies! It's all part of the COVID conspiracy!"

My mum thinks hospitals are making up Covid figures to get preferential treatment and money from the government.

Severelius wrote:My mum thinks hospitals are making up Covid figures to get preferential treatment and money from the government.

I've heard that one, too. I'm not a COVID denier, but I am cynical enough to wonder if something like that might not be happening part of the time here in the US, given our rapacious for profit health care industry.

An old temp lady at work told me that the media is inflating the numbers and there's nothing to be scared of.

Severelius wrote:My mum thinks hospitals are making up Covid figures to get preferential treatment and money from the government.

Would be wild if it turned out COVID was faked by NHS England and a cabal of medical administrators in Hull. Revenge for PFI?

Severelius wrote:

John27 wrote:

Magic J wrote:In all my ignorance, I know that statistics are tricky things, but the bottom line here is very simple: there are more real, flesh and blood people presenting to hospitals with COVID symptoms. I assume that the figures for that are routinely ignored.

I think some would say something like: "Those hospital figures are lies! It's all part of the COVID conspiracy!"

My mum thinks hospitals are making up Covid figures to get preferential treatment and money from the government.

If that’s true, it’s sad that they would have to resort to that just to give better healthcare to their fellow citizens.

Magic J wrote:

Severelius wrote:My mum thinks hospitals are making up Covid figures to get preferential treatment and money from the government.

Would be wild if it turned out COVID was faked by NHS England and a cabal of medical administrators in Hull. Revenge for PFI?

I'm always confused, by people who actually think this, while also thinking the NHS and UK government couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery...

... yet they could organise a global conspiracy??

Magic J wrote:

PopTart wrote:But tribalism isn't progress. It's the very opposite of progress.

Tribalistic is a strong word. I'd actually agree that it's a fairly useful term to describe the general US political climate, but what worries me is when there's a conflation between "tribalism" and "having a strong view on an issue". I wouldn't describe Derek, for instance, as being tribalistic, because whilst he appears to have strong views, he's clearly not in lockstep with either of the political "tribes". It's not the same as intrangience, either: one could be unreasonably intrangient without being tribalistic. I'd say that requires a more "us and them" kind of attitude, usually with some conception of distinct and opposed "cultures" or worldviews? Maybe.

But there is a definate "culture" when talking about politics on this site. Nearly everyone here expresses the same views, parrots the same concepts and those few who dare express views, not in keeping with the wider community, get given the cold shoulder or outright chased out of town.

Read through this thread again. Make note, the amount of times, someone speaks negatively or derogatorily, about someone who might vote differently or people who have political views the poster might disagree with. The contempt is palpable. It might not be every post, but it is there, just beneath the surface and people want to handwave it away, to ignore it.

People speak of the likes of Trump, being a threat to democracy, but the breakdown in respect for those who hold different views, no matter how stupid you might think those views are, is just as much a threat to democracy. Why then does one threat get treated with such vehemence and a willingness to tackle, while the other gets swept under the rug? Could it be because, knowingly or not, we are active participants in one and not the other? We are complicit and don't want to accept responsibility for it and have to check ourselves?

If it can engender contempt amongst family, what hope do economically, cultural or religiously diverse political trains of thought and those that hold them, have of overcoming the increasing divisions in our society have?

You speak of the dangers of conflation, but it has become all too common, practically universal, here and out in the real world, to conflate ones political views, with ones character, with ones measure of worth and value.

How many times have I read Severilius speak with utter contempt for anyone that would vote Tory, for example? To assign to them, all manner of loathesome traits and unendearing qualities. I voted for the Tories in the last election. I would expand on the many, many, many reasons why, but there is no audience here that would care to listen, or atleast that wouldn't pass judgement and so I stay silent.

For that experience alone, I can empathise with those who wished to vote for Trump but didn't wish to speak about it, while I couldn't personally fathom why, they would vote for the man, I could relate to the desire not to have to face down the base contempt that came with it. You need look no further than comments by Jzone, Derek, Pooler, Brenden and many others, to see how that prevailing attitude of disgust for others of a different political mind can be found.

People have given up talking and I am here, telling you, the same is happening on this site, sure, maybe I'm the only one, maybe not. But where there is one, there is often more. If not just here, then in the real world generally.

There is no room left for understanding anyone who makes different choices, either here or anywhere else.

Tribalism, then, is perhaps, like the galaxy at large, hard to see, from the inside, it's boundaries being obscured, from being apart of the local group, but once on the outside, you recognise those boundaries, all too well.

Derek wrote:Nah fam, tribalism is when people have opinions and your opinion is that no one should have opinions.

Yet another presumption about my politics and views, well informed perhaps, but you never ask what I really think to find out for certain, much of the time I have no desire to correct you.

I have no issue with people having opinions! Want to hear my opinion? I think that you have a tendancy to be snobbish, condescending and lacking in any respect for others as you sneer down your nose at those you feel are your intellectual inferiors. Where once you did this in service to your "slightly right" political views, you now do it for the other side, but instead of changing the way you treat with people and becoming a better man, you instead, just started waving a different colour flag and continued to be the same, hopelessly judgemental person. Bit of a strong opinion, wouldn't you say? That is what i have been disappointed about Derek, because your about face turn, hasn't been a transformative moment, but a wardrobe change. Yet you strut and preen in your new garb, thinking yourself a new man. You're not new, you're not "better" you think your part of some solution but the reality is, you are a continuing part of the problem.

Because I have no problem with people having strong views, I wish for people to be flexible in those views, but what worries me and concerns me most, is that casual hatred, disrespect and contempt those views seem to justify, towards anyone who holds different or opposing views from ones own.

It's shocking, how many supposedly liberal people here, people who I respect and admire, then go on to unfairly judge, dismiss and disregard, whole swathes of the political spectrum. It's one thing to have contempt for an opinion, quite another to have contempt for the holder of that opinion. <--- this is my issue. because it allows us to give zero fucks about what that person is saying, in a generalised fashion, it allows us to dismiss whole communities and social groups from consideration.

You either refuse to listen to the arguements made by political or idealogical opposites, when you do, if they don't articulate their views as well as you do, you dismiss their views and experiences as irrelevant. Oh, sure, there might be a "show" of listening, but it never really impacts upon your own notions. You've nailed your flag to a mast and there is nothing short of that boat sinking, that will get you to take that flag down. Even then, you might just go down with the ship, out of pride.

PopTart wrote:People speak of the likes of Trump, being a threat to democracy, but the breakdown in respect for those who hold different views, no matter how stupid you might think those views are, is just as much a threat to democracy.

You believe Trump, who is currently and actively trying to undermine democracy, is exactly as great a threat to democracy as someone who hates him and his supporters for trying to undermine democracy?

PopTart wrote:Tribalism, then, is perhaps, like the galaxy at large, hard to see, from the inside, it's boundaries being obscured, from being apart of the local group, but once on the outside, you recognise those boundaries, all too well.

It literally is not the definition of tribalism that people align themselves along ideological concerns.

PopTart wrote:Yet another presumption about my politics and views, well informed perhaps, but you never ask what I really think to find out for certain, much of the time I have no desire to correct you.

This whole thread is an invitation to share your beliefs. It's your choice not to contest our beliefs, only the tone with which we express them.

PopTart wrote:You're not new, you're not "better" you think your part of some solution but the reality is, you are a continuing part of the problem.

I suppose you could see it that way, if you reduce everything about a person's worldview down to your personal aesthetic impressions rather than its moral contents. I think that's an incredibly self-indulgent and anti-intellectual way of looking at things, though.

PopTart wrote:It's shocking, how many supposedly liberal people here, people who I respect and admire, then go on to unfairly judge, dismiss and disregard, whole swathes of the political spectrum. It's one thing to have contempt for an opinion, quite another to have contempt for the holder of that opinion. <--- this is my issue. because it allows us to give zero fucks about what that person is saying, in a generalised fashion, it allows us to dismiss whole communities and social groups from consideration.

The other day after I argued with my mom about politics for the fiftieth time, we said goodbye and I love you. Do you think maybe you're the one with the problem here?

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:People speak of the likes of Trump, being a threat to democracy, but the breakdown in respect for those who hold different views, no matter how stupid you might think those views are, is just as much a threat to democracy.

You believe Trump, who is currently and actively trying to undermine democracy, is exactly as great a threat to democracy as someone who hates him and his supporters for trying to undermine democracy?

How far do you think Trump is realistically going to get in his campaign to stay in office? I get that for many Americans, he has always seemed like America's very own Putin, but the guy hasn't got anything on Putin and America is not so far gone, that someone like Trump can wrestle the machinery of government away from those that have been elected to it.

But you can sure bet, that with the dragon slain, democrats will go right back to ignoring the people who voted for Trump, not because they supported him or his policies, but because there was no alternative that spoke for them and their concerns. Indeed, having been thoroughly alienated and disillusioned with the democratic system and the rising culture of denigrating anyone who fails to support the right kind of candidate, the political discussion is fundamentally changed, as is the makeup, of those who are welcome participants of it. Indeed, when people on the "morally upright" side, advocate for language and terminology, that can ultimately led to whole groups of social strata being dehumanised or their views and concerns being delegitimised, where do you think those people go? Because it isn't going to be back to the democrats. It's a breeding ground for resentment, disillusionment with the entire democratic process and with the capacity to reach mutual understanding and agreement.

That is something that is not going to be addressed. Hell, few people even want to talk about it.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:Tribalism, then, is perhaps, like the galaxy at large, hard to see, from the inside, it's boundaries being obscured, from being apart of the local group, but once on the outside, you recognise those boundaries, all too well.

It literally is not the definition of tribalism that people align themselves along ideological concerns.

No, your quite right, but the "othering" of political opponents or opposites, certainly is.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:Yet another presumption about my politics and views, well informed perhaps, but you never ask what I really think to find out for certain, much of the time I have no desire to correct you.

This whole thread is an invitation to share your beliefs. It's your choice not to contest our beliefs, only the tone with which we express them.

Because that tone is important, perhaps not as important as the beliefs themselves, but important in creating an environment in which people are afforded respect, regardless of their views. You may seek to justify it all you wish, but there is no mistaking your utter disdain for people who don't see things your way.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:You're not new, you're not "better" you think your part of some solution but the reality is, you are a continuing part of the problem.

I suppose you could see it that way, if you reduce everything about a person's worldview down to your personal aesthetic impressions rather than its moral contents. I think that's an incredibly self-indulgent and anti-intellectual way of looking at things, though.

ofcourse you would, but that hasn't stopped you from making veiled assertions about me, under the same circumstances.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:It's shocking, how many supposedly liberal people here, people who I respect and admire, then go on to unfairly judge, dismiss and disregard, whole swathes of the political spectrum. It's one thing to have contempt for an opinion, quite another to have contempt for the holder of that opinion. <--- this is my issue. because it allows us to give zero fucks about what that person is saying, in a generalised fashion, it allows us to dismiss whole communities and social groups from consideration.

The other day after I argued with my mom about politics for the fiftieth time, we said goodbye and I love you. Do you think maybe you're the one with the problem here?

Possibly, I would definately say, I feel very much out of step with the prevailing train of political thought here abouts. So perhaps it is my perception that is at fault, I would be remiss not to consider it.

PopTart wrote:How far do you think Trump is realistically going to get in his campaign to stay in office? I get that for many Americans, he has always seemed like America's very own Putin, but the guy hasn't got anything on Putin and America is not so far gone, that someone like Trump can wrestle the machinery of government away from those that have been elected to it.

I knew I could rest easy the moment he put Giuliani on the case. But the equivalency is still false, and recklessly so. To undermine democracy, scapegoat immigrants, denigrate minorities, and reinforce oppressive economic structures are not equivalent positions to despising people who undermine democracy, scapegoat immigrants, denigrate minorities, and reinforce oppressive economic structures. That is absurd and I will not humor servile hand-wringing in the face of clear and irreconcilable moral dilemmas.

PopTart wrote:No, your quite right, but the "othering" of political opponents or opposites, certainly is.

It is not. What you object to is people behaving as though they have even a half-hearted conviction in the moral premises of their political beliefs. I do not begrudge conservatives and liberals for arguing and fighting in a way that is consistent with their worldviews. It is the worldviews I take issue with, and this conflation of ideology with in-group behavior is insipid.

PopTart wrote:Because that tone is important, perhaps not as important as the beliefs themselves, but important in creating an environment in which people are afforded respect, regardless of their views. You may seek to justify it all you wish, but there is no mistaking your utter disdain for people who don't see things your way.

I couldn't disagree more. I would never have changed a single one of my beliefs if they weren't ridiculed, if I wasn't made to see how they were contemptible. You might feel otherwise, but then it is a matter of taste and I don't accept your criticism.

PopTart wrote:ofcourse you would, but that hasn't stopped you from making veiled assertions about me, under the same circumstances.

I have not said or even implied anything half as judgmental and bitchy as

Yet you strut and preen in your new garb, thinking yourself a new man. You're not new, you're not "better"

Let alone in service of something as trivial as tone-policing.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:How far do you think Trump is realistically going to get in his campaign to stay in office? I get that for many Americans, he has always seemed like America's very own Putin, but the guy hasn't got anything on Putin and America is not so far gone, that someone like Trump can wrestle the machinery of government away from those that have been elected to it.

I knew I could rest easy the moment he put Giuliani on the case. But the equivalency is still false, and recklessly so. To undermine democracy, scapegoat immigrants, denigrate minorities, and reinforce oppressive economic structures are not equivalent positions to despising people who undermine democracy, scapegoat immigrants, denigrate minorities, and reinforce oppressive economic structures. That is absurd and I will not humor servile hand-wringing in the face of clear and irreconcilable moral dilemmas.

Thats half the problem Derek, the assumption, that everyone who voted for Trump, did so because they wish to scapegoat immigrants, denigrate minorities and reinforce oppressive economic structures.

You honestly believe that nearly 50% of the US population feels that way? Genuinely holds such beliefs? Because I don't buy that. But I think a good amount of people do. In doing so, they never ask what did drive otherwise reasonable people to vote for a man like Trump. The underlying social, economic factors that drove those voters, their concerns, don't matter. They are supporters of a would be tyrant and as such, it doesn't matter what their concerns were.

What kind of functional democracy do you hope to build, when half the people that make up your nation, don't matter?

All for a bargain bin tyrant, who was always going to be his own undoing?

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:No, your quite right, but the "othering" of political opponents or opposites, certainly is.

It is not. What you object to is people behaving as though they have even a half-hearted conviction in the moral premises of their political beliefs. I do not begrudge conservatives and liberals who argue and fight in a way that is consistent with their worldviews. It is the worldviews I take issue with, and the conflation of ideology with in-group behavior is insipid

Sorry but I call bullshit. It's the views you take issue with? The way you talk about the people that hold those views, betrays your true attitude. Sure, you kiss your mum goodbye after a good debate, your not an animal. But the way you speak about others is far from respectful of those individuals. As to ideology and in group behaviour, you'll have to be more specific.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:Because that tone is important, perhaps not as important as the beliefs themselves, but important in creating an environment in which people are afforded respect, regardless of their views. You may seek to justify it all you wish, but there is no mistaking your utter disdain for people who don't see things your way.

I couldn't disagree more. I would never have changed a single one of my beliefs if they weren't ridiculed, if I wasn't made to see how they were contemptible. You might feel otherwise, but then it is a matter of taste and I don't accept your criticism.

So you were made to feel loathsome for your views? Were they that loathsome? The way you expressed them certainly could be. So because it took shame to change your attitudes, you feel justified in treating others in such a manner as to drive home how contemptible you find their views? They must be made to be ashamed? Is that it? And what if they have a foundation for their views, not based in the presumed desire to oppress/scapegoat/deprive, but from a place of frustration at their lot, is it still fitting to bully them into submission or silence? What ever happened to reaching across and helping people come to and accept alternatives?
I guess it's alot less satisfying, requires considerably more patience and effort and doesn't fit into your own experience, therefore, who has the time for that.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:ofcourse you would, but that hasn't stopped you from making veiled assertions about me, under the same circumstances.

I have not said or even implied anything half as judgmental and bitchy as

Yet you strut and preen in your new garb, thinking yourself a new man. You're not new, you're not "better"

Let alone in service of anything as trivial as tone-policing.

Bitchy? No, judgemental, yes, you've passed several "off the cuff" comments with no more constructive intent than mine and with every desire to snub me. I've just dispensed with the subtlety you seek to employ.

PopTart wrote:All for a bargain bin tyrant, who was always going to be his own undoing?

For a demagogue who succeeded in changing the political landscape of the most powerful nation on earth. It does not matter to me whether his followers "really" believe those things, because either way the result is the same. They have done terrible harm and they will do more unless they are opposed. It's precisely because the opposition thinks the way you do that they're not up to the challenge.

PopTart wrote:Sorry but I call bullshit. It's the views you take issue with? The way you talk about the people that hold those views, betrays your true attitude. Sure, you kiss your mum goodbye after a good debate, your not an animal. But the way you speak about others is far from respectful of those individuals. As to ideology and in group behaviour, you'll have to be more specific.

I don't believe in good people or bad people. People are what they do and believe. To feel contempt for people who do harm is not a regrettable circumstance of a divisive political landscape. It is the correct response, and if you feel otherwise, something is wrong with you.

PopTart wrote:What ever happened to reaching across and helping people come to and accept alternatives?
I guess it's alot less satisfying, requires considerably more patience and effort and doesn't fit into your own experience, therefore, who has the time for that.

I suppose I'll leave that to you, but this hasn't been a promising start.

PopTart wrote:I've just dispensed with the subtlety you seek to employ.

I assure you I have not felt the need to censor myself, especially here of all places. I have said exactly what I mean and nothing less.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:All for a bargain bin tyrant, who was always going to be his own undoing?

For a demagogue who succeeded in changing the political landscape of the most powerful nation on earth. It does not matter to me whether his followers "really" believe those things, because either way the result is the same. They have done terrible harm and they will do more unless they are opposed. It's precisely because the opposition thinks the way you do that they're not up to the challenge.

The fact that he had that power and the landscape was fertile enough for him to make such changes, is what people should be looking at. Why is that not a concern? You are, in a sense, like an oncologist in the 60's, you know what cancer is, you see the problem with cancer and wish to aggressively treat the cancer, but you have no clue nor seem to care, what caused the cancer. You think if you just bombard the tumour with enough radiation it will go away. Let's hope that your destructive approach doesn't do just as much harm, if the cancer turns out to be malignant. Who knows, perhaps, had you diagnosed the root cause, before the cancer metastasized, you could prevent further cancer. Instead, you just want to ravage the body in a campaign of shock and awe! Yeah! You'd be the medical embodiment of George W. Bush II.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:Sorry but I call bullshit. It's the views you take issue with? The way you talk about the people that hold those views, betrays your true attitude. Sure, you kiss your mum goodbye after a good debate, your not an animal. But the way you speak about others is far from respectful of those individuals. As to ideology and in group behaviour, you'll have to be more specific.

I don't believe in good people or bad people. People are what they do and believe. To feel contempt for people who do harm is not a regrettable circumstance of a divisive political landscape. It is the correct response, and if you feel otherwise, something is wrong with you.

No surprise, I don't believe people are good or bad either, in the biblical sense, people are sometimes decent and they are sometimes not. Usually people who are happy and contented are "good" people, they tend towards being decent to one another. They are more open minded, unless guided by influential people to be otherwise. All of which I'm sure you'll agree with.

My position, is that for reasons beyond simple ignorance, bigotry and hatred, people voted for Trump, perhaps they didn't have a good understanding of what that translates to or perhaps, they have no realistic alternative in their minds, but they may have had legitimate reasons, for voting for an outsider and political agitator, because they feel alienated in the current political landscape.

You will never know, because they need to be excised. You hold them in such contempt, you can't tolerate the possibility, that what drove them to the poor choices they make, might be something you could actually deal with, that in just giving time and consideration to their problems, you might be able to prevent them making similar or worse choices in the future. That in the future, those problems might be avoided altogether.

You don't believe in good or bad, but you clearly believe that people don't fundamentally change and if they do, it can only come about through shaming, denigration and abuse?

And there is something wrong, with me?

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:What ever happened to reaching across and helping people come to and accept alternatives?
I guess it's alot less satisfying, requires considerably more patience and effort and doesn't fit into your own experience, therefore, who has the time for that.

I suppose I'll leave that to you, but this hasn't been a promising start.

still early days.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:I've just dispensed with the subtlety you seek to employ.

I assure you I have not felt the need to censor myself, especially here of all places. I have said exactly what I mean and nothing less.

Yet you don't deny seeking to snub me, yet cry foul at my being bitchy? Yet you are happy to shame others whose views you find reproachable?

PopTart wrote:The fact that he had that power and the landscape was fertile enough for him to make such changes, is what people should be looking at. Why is that not a concern?

That was implied in the word "demagogue". I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm not concerned from - I've spent months talking about it - or how it fits into the discussion of whether its appropriate to denounce people who are part of an immoral political project.

PopTart wrote:You don't believe in good or bad, but you clearly believe that people don't fundamentally change and if they do, it can only come about through shaming, denigration and abuse?

It's your issue that you can't separate ideological warfare from spiritual condemnation. It does not matter to me whether the people I'm criticizing can change. The parameter of the debate is whether their politics - the context of an individual's existence within a larger society - are evil. I don't know all these people personally, and I don't want to because it does not matter. The only effect of this fucking interminable argument about civility is to distract everyone from the material, moral differences between competing ideologies.

PopTart wrote:Yet you don't deny seeking to snub me, yet cry foul at my being bitchy? Yet you are happy to shame others whose views you find reproachable?

I have not tried to "snub" you, because in this context, I do not care about you at all. If you've felt insulted by what I've said, it's because I ridiculed a value or belief that was a part of your sense of self. I imagine the distinction is lost on you if you cannot tell the difference between behavior you find aesthetically disagreeable and behavior you find morally repugnant, if indeed you believe there is a difference to begin with.

PopTart wrote:I voted for the Tories in the last election. I would expand on the many, many, many reasons why, but there is no audience here that would care to listen, or atleast that wouldn't pass judgement and so I stay silent.

*waves*

I'd care to listen. You'd get no judgement from me. I might or might not express my opinion on your views, but they're not going to change my favourable opinion of you as a person.

René wrote:

PopTart wrote:I voted for the Tories in the last election. I would expand on the many, many, many reasons why, but there is no audience here that would care to listen, or atleast that wouldn't pass judgement and so I stay silent.

*waves*

I'd care to listen. You'd get no judgement from me. I might or might not express my opinion on your views, but they're not going to change my favourable opinion of you as a person.

Despite my own personal opinions regarding the Conservative Party, I would also be interested in hearing this. I mean I vote Lib Dem way more often than not so according to apparently 95% of social media I'm basically a Tory by default anyway.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:The fact that he had that power and the landscape was fertile enough for him to make such changes, is what people should be looking at. Why is that not a concern?

That was implied in the word "demagogue". I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm not concerned from - I've spent months talking about it - or how it fits into the discussion of whether its appropriate to denounce people who are part of an immoral political project.

With other likeminded people, who offer what in the way of counterpoint? I've seen a conversation you've largely had with several people, who all tell you, your totally justified, in which, you half heartedly take the position of defense for the accused. That is what led to your breakthrough, that all people who dare vote the wrong way, are anathema, regardless of their motivations and intent?

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:You don't believe in good or bad, but you clearly believe that people don't fundamentally change and if they do, it can only come about through shaming, denigration and abuse?

It's your issue that you can't separate ideological warfare from spiritual condemnation. It does not matter to me whether the people I'm criticizing can change. The parameter of the debate is whether their politics - the context of an individual's existence within a larger society - are evil. I don't know all these people personally, and I don't want to because it does not matter. The only effect of this fucking interminable argument about civility is to distract everyone from the material, moral differences between competing ideologies.

That you frame the issues as ideological warfare and spiritual condemnation, seems more to me, that you are adamant on maintaining an attitude of belligerence and combativeness for its own ends, in service to your chosen political ideology, rather than seek some manner of political compromise based around hard earned, mutual understanding. Enjoy the ever increasing societal divide that such attitudes will inevitably lead to. You can have no hope of true evolution, just endless repetition of the cycle.

Derek wrote:

PopTart wrote:Yet you don't deny seeking to snub me, yet cry foul at my being bitchy? Yet you are happy to shame others whose views you find reproachable?

I have not tried to "snub" you, because in this context, I do not care about you at all. If you've felt insulted by what I've said, it's because I condemned a value or belief that was a part of your sense of self. I imagine the distinction is lost on you if you cannot tell the difference between behavior you find aesthetically disagreeable and behavior you find morally repugnant, if indeed you believe there is a difference to begin with.

Offended, once or twice, when you've made an unfair assumption about my character, yes. Which might constitute an attack against my sense of self. As to the last, you've alluded to that being in my nature before, I'll admit it gives me pause. I'll think on it.

I genuinely don’t recall who I voted for last time round. I wanna say maybe Lib Dem? I wouldn’t have voted for Labour whilst Jeremy was at the helm, and the general incompetence of the Conservatives has alienated me. But I wouldn’t have voted for an independent, so I suppose it must’ve been Lib Dem.