Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

There's the magic in your skewed view of yourself. You think you're continually poking holes. Maybe sometimes you are. But most of time you're just stating the opposite position as if that in and of itself is somehow meaningful.

It is. How else do you test a position's credibility?

Again, sowing skepticism isn't what you think it is. Poking holes in both sides is meaningless, especially because you really don't stand for fucking anything (other than your wallet, which is the only consistent position on policy I've seen you take).

It's true I cannot get what I want from either party. But again, weakness in positions should be exposed.

Good question. But surely you understand that if I say absolutely none, it's not because I am a brainwashed partisan who just follows whatever Democrats say. It's because I have thought about each issue and disagree with the opinions on the right.

I don't think you're brainwashed. But when someone cites a person like Harris on the issue of censorship on controversial issues, and the reaction is a knee jerk "Harris is fucking racist!," without even considering what Harris said, am I wrong to sense some tribalism? GGG and Adder have taken the position Harris is invalid on all things, without even considering the conversation.

What's funny about you is when I criticize the left--like I did when Hillary and Bill played those bullshit racist games with Obama--it doesn't mean a thing to you because you've already put me in a category that helps you with your tired ass tribal narrative. Obama's drone policy was bullshit. He was way too aggressive with immigration. None of that matters because I haven't agreed with Ted Cruz one time!

And when I criticize the right, it's all good. But when I criticize the left, I'm in bed with the alt right! (Not your criticism, but Adder's.)

Tell me which issues I should side with the right on. If I tell you why I don't, will you actually believe what I say or is it just more evidence that I am in my tribe and incapable of independent thought? That's why this is a stupid exercise.

I don't think you have an obligation to side with any. I only think you have an obligation not to pre-judge. The standard on assessing Trump voters is not, "They're all racists except the extent someone proves some of them are not."

But I'll tell you this much: The right too often welcomes racists with open arms (or at least doesn't denounce them). While this is a minor point on your long issues list, it is of vital importance to me because racism permeates every single aspect of politics. Hell, on almost every single policy position I can think of, the only time the right seems to care about race (read: protected classes) is when a white person might have been impacted by a policy.*

I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. I agree with it. 2?

Again, does that mean that I always agree with Democrats when it comes to race? Absolutely not. Are they almost always better than Republicans when it comes to actual policy? Hell yes.

Forget parties for a moment. This isn't really about parties at all. It's about bias. When someone pokes a hole in a position I hold, I don't immediately call the person a racist or a xenophobe or alt-right. Nor do you (this isn't really directed to you).

I grasp that you're annoyed that I think you've tribal sensibilities. I unfairly failed to distinguish you from those who knee jerked to use or "racist!" or "alt right!" (I should probably have this battle exclusively with GGG and Adder, who engage in that stuff.)

In this regard, I have generalized inaccurately, and lazily. I'll try to explicitly carve you out of this category as much as possible. But I can't drop the "tribal" criticism in regard to anyone who reflexively hurls an insult in response to skepticism. There's a certain "don't dare question what I believe" ring to that.

TM

*Of course this is all you'll hear from this post, but I don't really care.