So help me out here Corey. If we were friends having a beer together after playing a rough pickup game of basketball, I might say something like “Dude, don’t be a sensitive little twit. You’re wearing your political biases on your sleeves.” How would I tell you this without you feeling it was being “stated inappropriately”?
Now keep in mind our 2nd beer and the 18 piece chicken wings will be here in 7 minutes, and we are both really hungry.
It’s ok to be at least a little self-serving - Pin those puppies to the top!
If the party naturally is drawn to political discussions, is there something to learn from this?
I like your example. Because it presupposes some degree of mutual rapport, of the sort of genuine 2nd-person felt intimacy that comes with friendship. In the scenario I would trust that you actually know my 1st-person interiors from the inside out, due to that rapport. I would trust that you have some degree of care for me, and that you are not only seeing me through your own political lens. We simply do not have that kind of intimacy, and it’s hard to generate in a text-based forum such as this. I don’t even know your name, or what you look like. Whereas I am fully exposed.
There are certain natural guardrails and feedback loops that exist in face-to-face 2nd-person relationships, that we simply cannot emulate in a forum like this. When friends are together and breaking each other’s balls, there is a natural shared sensitivity and care that comes with it. We know when we’ve gone too far past a given line, because the feedback is direct, and not simply cognitive. You can tell by the subtleties of my body posture, my facial expressions, whether I laugh or cringe at your joke, etc. We do not have that sort of opportunity for interpersonal embodiment here, so we have to play by a more careful set of rules.
We can see the Hooters waitress coming with our beers and wings. No time for Integral-splaining.
So how would I say it “appropriately”?
And what if I was right on the money with my statement?
What if I were off? What if I were partially right and partially off?
If you tell a friend “dude, you’re so full of shit”, it’s endearing. Because that friend actually knows you well enough to be able to trust you can tell their “shit” from their “gold”.
If you tell a stranger “dude, you’re so full of shit”, it’s hostile.
If I had a friend who ONLY liked telling me how full of shit I am, or who tries to turn all of our conversations into political conversations, then there’s a good chance we would not remain friends for very long.
We simply do not have that rapport. You are a screenname to me, I have no idea who you actually are, what you look like, how you regard me, or even what your name is — so we have a very limited personal container for these conversations.
Assuming those you don’t know are “acting” or “insincere” must create a weird experience of the world for you. But then again, I’m in the “other camp”. I assume everyone says as accurately as they can articulate what they are thinking and feeling, at least at that time - regardless of whether we agree or not.
Should everyone see you the same way, as an actor playing a role lacking in sincerity? Or should we see you differently?
Back to Education and Propaganda… Many view VDH as a voice of reason in a dark inky pool of meaninglessness and existential despair.
VDH specifically calls out “what happened” vs “what Leftists claim to be afraid of”. Is it all a Power Grab by Leftists? Or perhaps the Right?
For the Left, Donald Trump is synonymous with “fascism” (or “semi-fascism,” as Joe Biden put it the other day). And for Liz Cheney and most of the NeverTrumpers, he remains an existential threat to democracy.
But to quantify those charges, what exactly has Trump done extralegally—as opposed to his bombast and braggadocio about what he might have wished to have done?
Yes, very simple. Almost condescendingly so I don’t think I need to prove anything by taking your Civics 101 pop quiz, but thanks!
Assuming those you don’t know are “acting” or “insincere” must create a weird experience of the world for you.
Never said anything like that. It’s not about “sincerity”, I never accused you of being “insincere”, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are, in fact, very sincere in how you expressed your views. It’s about personal rapport, and how that container changes the context of everything that takes place within it. You don’t get to make personal comments about my interiors if we do not have a personal relationship, because you have no other way of knowing what my interiors actually are. That’s just basic etiquette, isn’t it?
Should everyone see you the same way, as an actor playing a role lacking in sincerity?
Again, I never said what you seem to think I said, so I am not sure what I am responding to here. And as I mentioned, there is a bit of a difference when it comes to the amount of skin we have in the game. You are an anonymous screen name. Whereas you know who I am, my name, where I work, what I look like, my mannerisms, etc. I have an actual reputation on the line, and am competing in a larger reputation economy, and the way I answer that call is by efforting to be as sincere and authentic as I know how to.
My post was just reflecting your words back at you from the other side … I suspected and hoped it might read as uncomfortably negative to you … I also suspect the same negativity was experienced by @steljarkos reading your comment to him?
Do you see the difference in the different sorts of accusations, though?
I never accused steljarkos of having any kind of “DS”, as I was accused of by all three of you. I simply argued that, yes, it is possible to be deeply critical of Trump without being hostage to “TDS”. That yes, the January 6 attempted overthrow of a federal election absolutely did take place. And yes, that either Trump was justified in his attempted overthrow, or he wasn’t and is therefore a criminal who is responsible for the first non-peaceful transfer of power in modern history. None of this was shadow projection, none of this was was personal accusation, none of this was an attempt to discredit anyone’s personal kosmic address.
By the way, I’m also glad that Nixon was taken down because of Watergate. I guess I have “NDS”? People in here sure are outraged about Hunter Biden. I guess they have “HDS”?
I pointed out the circular reasoning that I saw in the ideas being presented — that it only matters that Trump “believed” the election was stolen, that there are no institutions in the land capable of refuting his beliefs, that all institutions are actively conspiring against Trump, and that all arguments to the contrary can only be due to “TDS”.
I described where I disagree with the ideas, which was no more or less hostile than, say, steljaros disagreeing with my notion that the justice system is the only way we can determine whether evidence is valid or not.
And just to reinforce the idea that no one needs to take any of this stuff as personal attack, I wrote an entire second comment that emphasized that it’s okay to disagree, that we don’t only need to enact each other through our own political view, and that it’s important to continue finding ways to achieve common ground outside of these kinds of political arguments. Just to make sure it was as clear as possible that this doesn’t need to be a shadow vs. shadow pissing contest. We can point out flaws in the various ideas that are circulating here, without accusing each other of being flawed in our own interiors.
This seems a strange line to draw.
All pills are an artificial intervention. Other pill increase longevity and make birth control necessary. An artificial solution to the artificial solution to natural selection.
No, there is obviously not only one way. You just WANT there to be only one way, lol.
I’m staring from the bottom of the hole looking up at you, lol.
Tell me about your fantasies and how much hidden desires you have to exploit women. The lets go down a little deeper and realize this is only a facade and you secretly hope to lose and be exploited by women.
Let’s talk about how you love to engage in conflict, how you want to attack and also be attacked by liberals, or anyone you might remotely associate as such - and how you enjoy both the role of the emotional masochist and the emotional sadist.
The after we dig though that, how about you tell me that really deep down you have some kind of suppressed homoeroticism that comes out humorously when you see other men in what you interpret as a “bromance”.
I agree with this, personally. My daughter was born with a chronic liver disease that she would not have survived without “artificial” medical intervention. Organ transplants aren’t “natural”, neither are the immunosuppressants she has to take for the rest of her life. But keeping her alive by using these resources is far more “natural” than not, from any father’s point of view.
And of course, all human artifacts are “artificial”, but that doesn’t make them any less natural, because we are not separate from nature and emergence
Corey, So here we are with your faux disdain. Based upon your narrative listings, I do question if understand Civics 101 as it is codified today. We have not reached National consensus to arbitrarily adopt any and all Far Leftist policies. Which leaves us in a position where the Law of the Land is technically still in place, regardless of Leftist gaslighting, presumptive overthrow, or whailing into the ether.
So what is your understanding of those 3 simple listing,
Corey, our relationship started the day I sent you a Personal note with suggestions that I thought would make your public presentations more compelling. Within a week you publicly whined that I had attacked you over well known issues you have. It was irrelevant to you that I had no idea what your issues are/were nor that the message you publicly espoused as victimization was kind, honest, sincere and private.
So here we are. I too think you ignore vast swaths of information, data and input in order to protect your mental trappings. And I also think you rationalize your veiled denigration of “those people” you deem as lesser than yourself. But hey that’s fine - you do you. It works as well for yourself as it’s working, right?
P.S. and I also publically apologized that you got your panties in a wad over me making a few private suggestions.
@steljarkos has a much more well developed perspective worthy of more than nitpicking individual points. @raybennett and @corey-devos you are both ignoring this and looking to unravel/nitpick so you can simplistically dismiss that which makes you a bit uncomfortable.
This reads like a list of non sequiturs to me. I never said anything about sincerity, and don’t know what that had to do with the response I posted. And now you are making another non sequitur leap, talking about the unsolicited “advice” you sent me something like two years ago. Which, yes, I experienced as rude, but I never claimed you were being insincere. So I still do not understand what point you are trying to make.
I feel that, in our encounters after all this time, I have made far more effort to agree and include aspects of your views than you have mine, which you typically reject altogether for being “Marxist” or “collectivist” or “leftist” or otherwise outside the bounds of your own preferred ideology.
So you can feel free to accuse me of “faux disdain” or “whining” or “getting my panties in a wad” or seeing people as “lesser than myself”. It’s all weak ad hominem character attacks with you, and has been from the beginning, and all it does is take us further away from any genuine rapport that would have otherwise been possible. You are someone who is constantly throwing punches, and then asks “why are you so defensive?”
And, as I’ve pointed out many times, it’s also in direct violation of the road rules of this community.
And if you want to point out my “argument strategies”, I can do the same. From post to post, you ignore the vast majority of what I write, and only hone in on the small nitpicks you think you can use to discredit my view, or put words in my mouth that I’ve never said, or else deflect the conversation in some other direction so you don’t need to respond to what I’ve actually written. I’d say you gloss over at least 80% of what I write here on any given day, and rarely concede when I’ve made a strong point.
Such as this statement: sitting presidents are not allowed to declare themselves winners of national elections, unless they have very strong evidence that survives judicial scrutiny. “Believing” you won an election is not enough to justify throwing the Constitution into the shredder. No amount of “executive privilege” can justify the attempt to overthrow our elections. And if a Democrat even hinted at doing something like this, y’all would be throwing an absolute fit. As you should, it’s about as anti-American as it gets.
Imagine Biden loses to DeSantis in 2024, has Kamala declare Biden winner anyway, and Antifa violently breaks into the Capitol in order to delay the confirmation. Because he just really feels deep down like he actually won. If you disagree, you just have BDS!
Just today, Trump demanded that he either be immediately reinstated as President, or else immediately redo the 2020 election. But somehow I am the asshole by saying “that’s not how any of this works.”
When your Tip of the Spear went on months long rant that I had dimentia were you silent? That seemed like an actual cancellation attack. Lol.
Of course you would.
Would you not characterize the vast majority of your development agendas as “increased collectivism” or “increased individualism”? Other than completely unfettered Abortion is there a single non Collectivist agenda item you promote? (But would be taxpayer funded…)
TL:DR. Sometimes less is more. You are extremely verbose and always are headed to your predetermined conclusion. Not really dialog-ish in my experience.
This is why I asked for your understanding on who writes election laws? But do you deflect with answer “Orangeman Bad” rationalization. Or perhaps you don’t know beyond the narrative. I don’t know.
I don’t think I need to prove anything by taking your Civics 101 pop quiz, but thanks!
