The Next President is...

[Negatory]

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Which leaders? Many of the thought leaders on the left, cited and lauded by media and political figures, are doing no such pleading. And I'm not sure a single (D) politician has condemned Antifa. How many Republicans have condemned the white supremacists? (All of them, including Trump, who is awful).

Your baseless bias is showing again. Did you get this talking point from the fox entertainment station, talk radio, or fbook memes? 

How about Biden?

“The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable […] as a country we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash. It is not a peaceful protest when you go out spoiling for a fight.”

“Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not.”

“There’s no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches or destroying businesses […] we need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest and opportunistic violent destruction”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN25V2O1

How about Pelosi when she condemned ”the violent actions of people calling themselves antifa”? I mean, I don’t even like Pelosi, but your statements are such obvious mistruths.

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said at the time.

Edited September 27, 2020 by brawnie

[Lord Ratner]

33 minutes ago, slackline said:

Thanks for the calmly worded and thoughtful response.

I do think, your citing of Hank Newsom is slightly taken out of context. When you pull out the “sound bite” it does, indeed, appear horrible. He was making a larger point about what he perceived to be hypocrisy of a country that does, in fact, affect change pretty much any where it wants, through violent means. I think he’s taking a fairly narrow minded view on it, but consider his life experience. He’s ignorant (literal definition) to geopolitics, so his fairly undeveloped take on it could be understood. https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-happen-we-will-burn-down-this-system/ I’ve posted a link to an article that includes the full text of what he said. I had to go find it, had not read it before.

It took literally long enough to type it into Google and start reading results.

Here’s another from USAToday https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-democrats-have-condemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/ It quotes a bunch of people with D next to their names as condemning violence and looting.


https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/ 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Trump admin and allies have labeled them all as violent anarchists. That doesn’t check.

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-black-lives-matter-leaders-condemn-violence-and-vandalism-at-protests
Another instance of BLM leadership condemning violence. There’s more. Left leaning and right leaning media all have reported on the same stories. Does this fit the narrative people are putting out about violence? Nope, so let’s ignore it.

The Asian American comparison you make isn’t quite apples to apples. https://journalnow.com/news/state/white-supremacists-took-over-a-city-now-nc-is-doing-more-to-remember-the-deadly/article_a9d267b6-4b8c-5710-8548-c6c40af495a4.html If you haven’t heard of this, I encourage you to read up on it. Tell me, at what point have Asian Americans ever faced this level of oppression? I’m not saying they’ve had an easy road to hoe in the US, but it doesn’t compare to hundreds of years of oppression.

I’m not calling you racist, or anyone here for that matter. I am saying that the system has biases. Ignoring that hurts us all, makes it difficult to as you say, chase these dreams together. I agree with that sentiment 100%! I’m just saying if we calmly have this kind of discussion, it becomes more difficult to deny that. Rejecting the idea out of hand doesn’t mean someone is racist, but it COULD (did caps cause I don’t know how to do italics) mean someone is afraid to admit they’re wrong, or pride is preventing them from seeing that. You could easily make the same argument for 1st gen African Americans. I think you hit the nail on the head here. From birth almost, they’re told they can’t do it. Often self-inflicted, but virtually always, based in their experiences. Almost every black person I know has had a scary encounter with police. Being pulled over for them and us is a totally different experience. Take a second on Google and you can find a bunch of examples of violent, aggressive white people not getting shot or tased while interacting with a cop. I myself have been stupidly belligerent with cops that have been power tripping, and never felt threatened. Not excusing my actions, but it is something that even 5 years ago I would have considered a non-issue. Now, I genuinely (from my perspective) see it as a result of biases in cops. Even proven to exist in black cops. They’re prone to consider a black person as a threat before given an actual reason for it.

Remember, yes, more white people are stopped by police, but they make up ~70% of population vs. ~13 % of black people. The ratios of police violence/use of force when you take those numbers into account are pretty one-sided. Then if you break it down even more, white people are in most cases 2x more likely to be carrying a weapon, drugs, or actually guilty of a crime when being stopped by police. None of this excuses violent criminals’ actions, but to me, it sure makes it difficult to calmly accept the level of “threat” black people are treated with by police.
Read these studies or don’t, your call:
https://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2009/06/HLC104_crop.pdf

https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1882&context=articles

https://www.nap.edu/read/24928/chapter/9

I am not sure where the North vs South argument with regards to racism came from. I didn’t make it, nor am I advocating that there are none in the North. I’m not naive, of course there are. Anyone who has read any history knows that the North doesn’t have a clear conscience when it comes to racism simply because they banned slavery sooner. Anecdotally, my experience has shown a much harsher version of racism in the south than it has in the north. Scary at times even. That’s simply my experience though, so meh...

Here’s where I probably lose more diehard conservatives. I’m not talking forced readings of White Fragility, THAT’S STUPID. I’m saying it’s not enough to simply not be racist anymore. We need to actively be anti-racist. Here’s my definition of that (haven’t looked it up): internally examining ourselves for biases that may shade our judgments, calling out injustices where we see/hear it (something I think most military people are good at), and looking at the system with an objective, not subjective eye to see if there are changes that need to be made.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Comparing the rates of use of force and police violence to the raw population composition is a statistical mistake. Compare it to the rates of violent crime perpetuated by each of the various races, and you get a much more realistic look at why this is happening.

 

The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police.

 

All of this to say, we absolutely do not have a systemic problem with racism in policing interactions. What we do have is a problem with policing philosophy in the United States, the use of force, and an officer's right to self defense before a threat has materialized. But as long as we insist on including racism as a component, and in fact a dominant component of the conversation, we will get nowhere.

[Negatory]

And you wanna know the worst part of this, Lord Ratner? It took me 2 minutes to fact-check the BS you wrote using google. In 2 minutes, there’s concrete proof you are incorrect.

Other people will just agree with you - without fact checking - because it fits their narrative, and the cycle of false narratives and pointless arguments will be reinforced.

[Negatory]

22 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police.

Another demonstrably false claim spouted as fact, which entirely derails your argument.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

[slackline]

 an officer's right to self defense before a threat has materialized

I think you need to explain this better. Am I to understand that an officer has the right to the use of force for self-defense before there is any threat?

So, if in a conversation and I’m a cop, I think you’re going to punch me, but you haven’t acted on that yet, I’m allowed to defend myself and tase you? Maybe I’m just not understanding your wording.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

This double posted for some reason

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

12 minutes ago, slackline said:

 

I think you need to explain this better. Am I to understand that an officer has the right to the use of force for self-defense before there is any threat?

So, if in a conversation and I’m a cop, I think you’re going to punch me, but you haven’t acted on that yet, I’m allowed to defend myself and tase you? Maybe I’m just not understanding your wording.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

If you reach into your pocket when you were told not to, you can be shot. No weapon. It has happened and the officers walked.

I get it. Dangerous job. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect police officers to adhere to some of the same standards that military members must follow, and in some cases you have to get shot at first before you get to shoot back. many of these situations don't take into account the proportion of officers to assailants. In a one-to-one situation like Michael Brown, and officer absolutely should use deadly force to protect themselves. But what if there were 3 officers? Six officers? Ten officers? at a certain point bodily harm is part of the job, that's what makes it noble. Responding with deadly force is not always the right answer to someone posing a physical risk.

 

And to be clear, I don't blame the officers and many of these cases. Like I said the problem is with policing philosophy in general, not those who are taught it.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

13 minutes ago, brawnie said:

Another demonstrably false claim spouted as fact, which entirely derails your argument.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

Maybe spend more than two minutes next time. Nice chart though. Read up on the hazards of trend lines.

 

Also interesting that you skimmed over the whole part about rates of violent crime by race. Statistics matter. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[slackline]

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
Maybe spend more than two minutes next time. Nice chart though. Read up on the hazards of trend lines.
 
Also interesting that you skimmed over the whole part about rates of violent crime by race. Statistics matter. 

That’s a good study. Thanks for posting it. I don’t think you read all of it though.

Also, go back and read what KA wrote. Some of this problem is homegrown. That shows the inherent bias in the system, not racist individuals. Policing, whether by white, black or other cops, generally treats POC as more of a threat than a white person. The study even talks about this, and says one possible explanation is simply the communities local departments recruit from may have more POC, so they will be the ones overreacting to something that doesn’t require lethal use of force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Negatory]

4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

 

Stay on topic, brother. You said something that has been shown to be false, and was even shown false in the article you sent, and that is what was pointed out:

From you (this is the false part): "The racist narrative falls apart especially when you look at the race of the police conducting these interactions. Minority police have a higher representation in use of violence against minorities than white police."

From your article: "Black officers were not more likely to fatally shoot Black civilians (OR = 1.06 vs. 1.23), and Hispanic officers were less likely to fatally shoot Black (OR = 1.23 vs. 1.29) and Hispanic (OR = 1.32 vs. 1.84) civilians"

From nature: see previous graph.

Also, if you want to get into a scientific discussion, then I assume you are smart enough to know that how you look at data affects the conclusions you can gather. If you intentionally ignore certain permutations of the data set, then you can often show things that aren't true. Here's the best part, the authors literally RETRACTED their article because it was being misused.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130

"The authors wish to note the following: “Our article estimated the role of officer characteristics in predicting the race of civilians fatally shot by police. A critique pointed out we had erroneously made statements about racial differences in the probability of being shot (1), and we issued a correction to rectify the statement (2). Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research."

They had to literally issue a retraction because people like you mis-cite it to make false points.

[slackline]

If you reach into your pocket when you were told not to, you can be shot. No weapon. It has happened and the officers walked.
I get it. Dangerous job. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect police officers to adhere to some of the same standards that military members must follow, and in some cases you have to get shot at first before you get to shoot back. many of these situations don't take into account the proportion of officers to assailants. In a one-to-one situation like Michael Brown, and officer absolutely should use deadly force to protect themselves. But what if there were 3 officers? Six officers? Ten officers? at a certain point bodily harm is part of the job, that's what makes it noble. Responding with deadly force is not always the right answer to someone posing a physical risk.
 
And to be clear, I don't blame the officers and many of these cases. Like I said the problem is with policing philosophy in general, not those who are taught it.

Well, I’ll absolutely agree with you on it being a policing philosophy problem. Cops should not be able to lord authority the way they do. Protect and serve, not dominate the situation and intimidate. Saying you felt threatened is the go-to defense. Dude put his hand in his pocket, so you shoot? I hope you never become a police officer if you’re okay with that. While I agree it’s legal, doesn’t make it right... Police need more training for sure, but not in tactics. In deescalation, working with the mentally ill, and emotional intelligence. If we’re not going to focus the training on that, then, defund (look up the difference between defund and unfund) is a good route. Some of that funding can be directed at mental health personnel that can be sent to deal with a situation instead of a cop who is ignorant (literal definition, not pejorative) on how to deal with those situations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

14 minutes ago, slackline said:

That’s a good study. Thanks for posting it. I don’t think you read all of it though.

Also, go back and read what KA wrote. Some of this problem is homegrown. That shows the inherent bias in the system, not racist individuals. Policing, whether by white, black or other cops, generally treats POC as more of a threat than a white person. The study even talks about this, and says one possible explanation is simply the communities local departments recruit from may have more POC, so they will be the ones overreacting to something that doesn’t require lethal use of force.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did, and like all studies, there are weaknesses.

 

So much of this boils down to "systemic." POC *are* more of a threat. This is an inescapable statistic fact in 2020. 

Racist answer: black people are genetically prone to violence

Systemic racism: The punishment for carrying a weapon is 5 to 10 years if you're white, 10 to 20 if you're black.

Racist judge: sentences white people to fewer years in prison for the same crime as black people

Racist cop: gives black people tickets for all speeding infractions, gives white people a warning

 

Three of the four exist. The second does not in 2020 America.

 

There's a very real and critical conversation to have about why people of color are a bigger threat. And it has nothing to do with the amount of pigment in someone's skin. Putting 18-year-olds in prison for decades because they committed a crime that anyone of us would have committed had we grown up in a broken home, in a shitty neighborhood, with no schooling, and no opportunities is insane. The modern disincentives towards a two-parent household, which is affecting all races, but black families at an alarmingly higher rate, is another problem we need to address.

Conservatives have no interest in acknowledging the disparities that exist today, and that fixing them will require a tremendous allocation of resources. Liberals have no interest in a solution that doesn't involve racism as the primary driver and focus. So neither side is going to get anything done.

 

Racism started this whole mess. Actually, slavery started this whole mess, it just happened to be black people that were the slaves in America. The racism part has been solved systemically. Making up for the after-effects of that racist system (and the good-intentioned policies that have made things worse) is the problem we face today. But the people who are around today, who are not racists and who are not responsible for the racist systems that caused these problems, are not going to be a part of the solution if that solution mandates labeling them as racist by association.

 

And calling the system racist *is* akin to calling the people involved with the system racists. Because what decent person would be involved in a system that is so blatantly racist?

Edited September 27, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[Negatory]

**Trigger warning**

You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be?

You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy.

It's simple: you don't think for yourselves.

The only thing that you guys agree with is that the "republican policies are better than the alternatives." You guys are voting for Trump just to not vote for Biden. Not that you actually know any of Biden's policies.

The problem, here, is that you guys are not arguing in good faith. It means you're not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds.

Arguing here is the equivalent to arguing with sheep, even if you guys are some well-educated, well-employed sheep. Whatever the party, whatever fox news, whatever the memes say - that is what you will believe and vehemently defend. Think for yourselves is easy for me to say, but I know it's not going to happen, based on the actual data:

• Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context

• Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package)

• Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package)

• Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.)

• Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package)

• Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context

[Prozac]

19 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

A lot of people here should probably watch this and do some self-reflection.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

Thanks for posting this man. You reminded me that this has been on my watch list since it came out so I took the time to sit down and watch yesterday. I notice there are a couple downvotes on your post from people who likely haven’t watched it or even know what it’s about. For those who don’t want to click on links, what Sua posted was a link to the Netflix doc The Social Dilemma. It looks at how the business model of social networks, and to a lesser extent, cable news, can have unintended consequences when applied on the scale of basically the entire general public. The film takes an intentionally nonpartisan tack and the pitfalls it attempts to reveal can be equally applied to Republican/Democrat/Right/Left. Should be required viewing for anyone with an internet connection. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, brawnie said:

**Trigger warning**

You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be?

You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy.

It's simple: you don't think for yourselves.

The only thing that you guys agree with is that the "republican policies are better than the alternatives." You guys are voting for Trump just to not vote for Biden. Not that you actually know any of Biden's policies.

The problem, here, is that you guys are not arguing in good faith. It means you're not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds.

Arguing here is the equivalent to arguing with sheep, even if you guys are some well-educated, well-employed sheep. Whatever the party, whatever fox news, whatever the memes say - that is what you will believe and vehemently defend. Think for yourselves is easy for me to say, but I know it's not going to happen, based on the actual data:

• Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context

• Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package)

• Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package)

• Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.)

• Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package)

• Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context

So what your saying is, Trump improved the life of all Republicans without really disrupting anything for Democrats? Sounds like a huge win for Trump!

[Seadogs]

9 minutes ago, N730 said:

Don't assume what my side is. Dude, did you ever get picked up? If not, your clearly shitty attitude is probably why.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app


Edit: To clarify "my side" somehow, depending on who you ask, I'm either a liberal nut job or a trumpster incapable of empathy. But to say conservatives have been quiet for way too long is laughable and just shows how out of touch you are. But keep up your melodramatic diatribes, they're almost entertaining at this point.

You're basing this conversation off of whether I got picked up or not. How sad...

[Sua Sponte]

13 minutes ago, Seadogs said:

You're basing this conversation off of whether I got picked up or not. How sad...

So, you didn’t? Copy.

[dream big]

1 hour ago, Seadogs said:

You're basing this conversation off of whether I got picked up or not. How sad...

Sorry guys, picked up for what? Haha

[Kiloalpha]

4 hours ago, brawnie said:

**Trigger warning**

You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be?

You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy.

It's simple: you don't think for yourselves.

The only thing that you guys agree with is that the "republican policies are better than the alternatives." You guys are voting for Trump just to not vote for Biden. Not that you actually know any of Biden's policies.

The problem, here, is that you guys are not arguing in good faith. It means you're not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds.

Arguing here is the equivalent to arguing with sheep, even if you guys are some well-educated, well-employed sheep. Whatever the party, whatever fox news, whatever the memes say - that is what you will believe and vehemently defend. Think for yourselves is easy for me to say, but I know it's not going to happen, based on the actual data:

• Exhibit 1: Opinion of Syrian airstrikes under Obama vs. Trump. Source Data 1, Source Data 2 and Article for Context

• Exhibit 2: Opinion of the NFL after large amounts of players began kneeling during the anthem to protest racism. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Morning Consult package)

• Exhibit 3: Opinion of ESPN after they fired a conservative broadcast analyst. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing YouGov’s “BrandIndex” package)

• Exhibit 4: Opinion of Vladimir Putin after Trump began praising Russia during the election. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 5: Opinion of "Obamacare" vs. "Kynect" (Kentucky's implementation of Obamacare). Kentuckians feel differently about the policy depending on the name. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 6: Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 7: White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. (Same source and article as previous exhibit.)

• Exhibit 8: Republicans were far more likely to embrace a certain policy if they knew Trump was for it—whether the policy was liberal or conservative. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 9: Republicans became far more opposed to gun control when Obama took office. Democrats have remained consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 10: Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 11: Wisconsin Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 approval points the day Trump was sworn in. Graph also shows some Democratic bias, but not nearly as bad. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 12: Republicans became deeply negative about trade agreements when Trump became the GOP frontrunner. Democrats remain consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 13: 10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. Source Data and Article for Context

• Exhibit 14: Republicans suddenly feel very comfortable making major purchases now that Trump is president. Democrats don't feel more or less comfortable than before. Article for Context (viewing source data requires purchasing Gallup's Advanced Analytics package)

• Exhibit 15: Democrats have had a consistently improving outlook on the economy, including after Trump's victory. Republicans? A 30-point spike once Trump won. Source Data and Article for Context

Brownie, it’s a bit ironic... you coming on here and accusing people of not thinking for themselves... when that entire list was created two years ago by a Reddit user named “TrumpImpeachedAugust,” and you just copy/pasted it in here. Unless you moonlight as that guy, in which case bravo.

However, I’ll dig through that info when I have more time and get back to you. But let’s be clear. I’d be doing more work than you did to post something that validated your feelings. Just saying.

[drewpey]

5 hours ago, slackline said:

If we’re not going to focus the training on that, then, defund (look up the difference between defund and unfund) is a good route. Some of that funding can be directed at mental health personnel that can be sent to deal with a situation instead of a cop who is ignorant (literal definition, not pejorative) on how to deal with those situations.

I'll admit I was hesitant of this sort of talk initially, but after reading about it it does seem like a good idea.  Having a different organization responding to mental health events with more specialized training might be a good way of alleviating much of the stress on the police force and allowing them to focus their training in other areas.  We expect them to do too much and are shocked when combining poor training with low pay we get shitty results.  Right now it takes me longer to complete barber college than to become a cop.

I listened to an interesting podcast that talked about the parallels of this and how EMTs were first stood up in the states.  Lots of resistance initially but after a while the value is seen and it becomes commonplace.  Will be interesting to see the ideas that come out of solving this problem if the marketplace of ideas is allowed to flourish.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/freedom-house-ambulance-service/

We can't have a realistic conversation about it, because of the extremes.  Yes there are some on the fringe calling for no police at all, and at the other extreme you have people begging cops to just shoot the protesters and move on.  In the middle is the opportunity to solve the problem of an overworked, underpaid and undertrained police force we want to handle all these sticky situations with no accountability.

 

[Prozac]

40 minutes ago, drewpey said:

I'll admit I was hesitant of this sort of talk initially, but after reading about it it does seem like a good idea.  Having a different organization responding to mental health events with more specialized training might be a good way of alleviating much of the stress on the police force and allowing them to focus their training in other areas.  We expect them to do too much and are shocked when combining poor training with low pay we get shitty results.  Right now it takes me longer to complete barber college than to become a cop.

I listened to an interesting podcast that talked about the parallels of this and how EMTs were first stood up in the states.  Lots of resistance initially but after a while the value is seen and it becomes commonplace.  Will be interesting to see the ideas that come out of solving this problem if the marketplace of ideas is allowed to flourish.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/freedom-house-ambulance-service/

We can't have a realistic conversation about it, because of the extremes.  Yes there are some on the fringe calling for no police at all, and at the other extreme you have people begging cops to just shoot the protesters and move on.  In the middle is the opportunity to solve the problem of an overworked, underpaid and undertrained police force we want to handle all these sticky situations with no accountability.

 

I don’t think it helps that the cause is labeled “Defund the Police”. We should say “Reform the Police”, or “Reallocate Some Police Funding to Mental Health”. But those just don’t have the same ring. It’s hard to blame conservatives for misinterpretation of your position when your slogan is deliberately misleading. It’s yet another example of how we can talk past/over one another without seeing that we agree on more than we realize. “Institutional Racism” is another term that many of us seem to latch on to. I read Kiloalpha’s and Lord Ratner’s posts above and realize that they are cognizant of many issues that I would label institutional racism, but that they choose not to use that label. Buzzwords and catchy phrases look great on memes and banners, but have no place in a serious conversation about issues. 

[brabus]

7 hours ago, brawnie said:

 

**Trigger warning**

 

You very well stated exactly how many right leaning people feel about the left. So what does that say about our society in general? I think the underlying problem is politics has become a team sport and nobody is willing to admit other viewpoints may have merit, even if you don’t fully agree with them. Instead, everyone who doesn’t agree with you is immediately ignorant, biased, doesn’t fact check, use shitty sources, yeah but!....it goes on and on. You do it, I do it, we all do. Maybe the first step is admitting we as a country are at this point, and need to cool the jets and be able to have conversations that don’t end in total agreement. 

[slackline]

Well, whatever kumbaya crap that's happening in here right now, that's what needs to happen on the big stage.

Honestly, I appreciate your viewpoints and it gives me a lot to consider. We don't have to come to a rock solid agreement, but understanding that the other "side" is coming from a place of genuine concern and care for the whole is critically important. We need more of it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, brawnie said:

**Trigger warning**

You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be?

You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy.

It's simple: you don't think for yourselves.

...

You have some major projection going on. You need to look hard at your party and those associated with it.

Pile on: Biden doesn't know Biden's policies. One of the biggest issues I have with "his" campaign is that it is being used to install a "vice" president who was so wholly rejected during her own primary that she was among the first to drop out. That worries me. It should worry all Americans.

Edited September 27, 2020 by ViperMan

[Negatory]

Haha, responses were perfect. Ad hominem my homies. Easy way out, but it's 100% what's happening.

Nothing in the way of addressing the point of the text, just baselessly attacking the person/source. Which is pretty normal when you don't know what to say in response to the actual point.

If all you can come up with is that I am "projecting" or I found my information somewhere else - or that it's no different for how republicans feel about the left (even though the point of the post is that it IS different) - then I'll assume you don't actually have a counterpoint. The sources show that groupthink happens significantly more on the right. And, based on your responses, you can't address it. Honestly, I'll bet you never get around to responding to the point of the post. You may literally even plan not to already.

And saying stuff like "Biden doesn't know Biden's policies" is about as useful as saying "Trump doesn't know Trump's policies." It's meaningless.