Pettifogging- that's a new one to me.
I'm referring to the people who systematically demonstrate zero interest in listening and participate in conversations exclusively to be heard. They go into conversations with stationary talking points and display such a clear and dogmatic focus on shooting down absolutely any opposing view and willfully misunderstanding the other side that they've become blind to how weak their argument is. They've lost objectivity and the capacity to consider how what they're saying might sound to the other side. In proper debate, the best strategy is to understand the other side so well that you could effectively make their argument for them, and then build on that. There isn't anywhere near enough of this going on anywhere in this country.
I typically just ignore/change the subject when people start digging into that business- because what's the point? You're not winning anyone over, nobody is going to concede defeat, so it's mostly a waste of breath.
Exactly. I realize I'm impatient, and I typically stop bothering to read someone's posts once I catch more than a couple whiffs of the above mentioned overzealous competitive pettifogging. I've tried sorting through it for a glimpse of understanding of the other side, but where it's really strong it's like being trapped in a small room with someone else's farts. It does make a big difference when someone else is at least trying though.
I believe there's perfectly level headed people on the left who come to their conclusions on Trump and things like this with perfectly acceptable rationality- despite many of my politically allied peers dismissing them as insane (which I also get), but it is extremely hard to find people on the left that share this level of perception or understanding for people on the right. The ones that do usually get cannibalized. Those that make some kind of effort (like you) don't seem to be doing it quite right, and ultimately default back to blind bigotry as a consequence.
LOL. And not in an antagonistic way. I mean, I'd kinda describe you the same way. It's like understanding
almost happens, but then you seem hit a wall. I've actually gotten the impression that a big part of the problem is referring to issues from the vantage point of generalities ("more regulation" vs. "less regulation"), and that there actually might be a surprising amount of agreement if we broke it down into very specific components. Because the generalities become emotionally charged buzz words that don't really do justice (for the sake of dialogue) in either direction to what they're supposed to represent.
What are some specific examples of the blind bigotry that I or others here default back to?
We're going to need to bridge the gap sooner or later. I don't know when it was that the right got to be more liberal in thought than the left, but as someone who has always been a very liberal thinker, it was a pretty convenient transition for my fiscally conservative principals to fall into 'the best of both worlds' and finally have a way to lean (right) instead of having to just sit in the middle with favored facets from both directions.
What exactly do you mean? (My first assumption is that maybe you are referring to "cancel culture" here or SJW policing? Because I find that exhausting as well. But there are too many ways to interpret "liberal" to make assumptions, so specific clarification would help).
People on the right, myself included, don't care about impeaching Trump because we have never been given any indication that the people pushing for it are doing so with even the slightest degree of good faith.
What exactly would that look like? Because I personally think Pelosi has actually been cautious and measured about impeachment, only finally moving forward with an inquiry when news broke about the Ukraine. The Mueller investigation wasn't a "witch hunt"; lots of people were indicted, lots of evidence was found that Russia did indeed interfere with the 2016 election and that they were continuing to interfere. I mean, it genuinely looks like the only way to appear to be 'coming from good faith' is to ...let Trump get away with anything he wants? I realize that incessant attempts to hold him accountable for his toddler-style bullying and pathological lying might provide a backdrop that shades the more substantial complaints in bad faith (and I don't know what to say about that, because I don't think his toddler-style bullying and pathological lying should be acceptable for a POTUS). But how is it even possible to complain about the more consequential stuff?
Can you give a hypothetical example of a complaint against Trump for these things that would seem reasonable and a demonstration of good faith to you? What needs to happen for it to seem like it's coming from good faith?
There is absolutely zero faith from people on the right in the process- and that's a big problem. It's why I said way back when that the whole circus is completely pointless without bipartisanship. To draw an inverted comparison again- if Breitbart News came after Obama and hosted a bunch of accusations and experts, how much would you care/watch/believe in the provided context and framework, given the source?
I'm not sure what to do with this question because Breitbart is so far right on the bias spectrum. I can tell you that I don't give Huffington Post or Daily Kos more weight than I give Breitbart or Fox. But the New York Times or Washington Post - if all the more centric sources started saying the same thing about him, and backing up their claims with proof, I wouldn't flee into Mother Jones/Huffinton Post/Buzzfeed out of blind loyalty to Obama and start claiming everything except the far left sources couldn't be trusted. So I just don't get it. (And people who only have faith in either far end of the spectrum get immediately chucked into "competitive pettifogging" purgatory, I have a hard time believing they deserve to be paid any attention to).
The reaction to Trump since his election has been astounding.
But
he does it to himself. I don't think it's a conscious strategy (I don't think he's anywhere near that smart), but
he created that reaction to himself with his own behavior.
Do you really not see that he provokes it himself? Do you really think the onus of this conflict is all on the people whom he has effectively antagonized, and he's not responsible for the hate he's incited against himself?
While I find Bill Maher a bit more vitriolic than is necessary (and it impedes the message he's trying to get across), I think this piece (starting around 2:31) captures the mystifying aspect well.
The vindictive part of me hopes Biden does win - and we take the Senate and the House - and that senile dementia immediately takes over, so we can spend the next four years doing exactly the same in return. When he starts wandering around the White House lawn without pants and one banana in his hand - talking to it like he's talking into a telephone - and another banana sticking halfway out his ass, and the banana he's talking into is suspiciously brown (like maybe he switches back and forth between the two); we'll deflect all observations about it as "Biden Derangement Syndrome" and insist all criticism is just confirmation bias distorting the other side's judgement, making mountains out of molehills without realizing they're doing it, with all Dems in Congress lining up to hardcore enable the en masse gaslighting. (Fortunately the vindictive part of me is only 2-3%, and I recognize this would actually be a very bad thing).
The hate doesn't hurt him. It helps him.
Yes, this is clear. And using the chaos one stirs up to one's own advantage like this is actually a trademark of malignant narcissism. Whether or not the label "malignant narcissist" is attached to him, the behavior is there: he stirs up hate towards himself by being a juvenile shithead - narcissists are grand masters of provoking, of knowing
exactly what to say to get another person/party riled up and then playing stupid about it and pointing to the anger they caused as a reason the other person/party shouldn't be taken seriously - and then uses that hate to convince his base that the
single only reason the left is saying bad things about him is because they hate him. It's not. We do hate him, but there are legitimate issues (e.g. Mueller investigation was not a "witch hunt", and so much more) that he needs to be held accountable for. And by crying - like a toddler - about how hated he is and how much "fake news" picks on him, he HAS effectively managed to avoid taking accountability for ANYTHING to his base. He seems to systematically convince his base there's
nothing for him to take accountability for, and that everyone (Dems, "never Trumpers, haters, etc) who attempts to point out something he's done that's unacceptable is
only doing it because they hate him. Every witness who said something that works against him in the impeachment hearings is
only saying what they did because there is so much "hate" for him. It's not true, but his base seems to be swallowing it whole.
He could now quite literally shoot someone walking down the street in broad daylight, and nobody on the right would believe it because they would just assume the hateful left fabricated it. I care about people on the left, and I care about justice- it's sad to me to see how dangerously unraveled they have become, and like Trump they have to own up to their own actions as well. The media made Trump, and now seems hell bent on empowering him. People need to start turning that shit off and pursuing their own lives. Calm it down some.
I agree with this. I actually get wound up seeing far left headlines, because it's just helping him. I believe there's a very strong argument against him and it's getting drowned out by histrionics. We need to boost the signal and cut down on the noise, and far left sources only contribute noise.
And the Dem candidates also need to dial it down a notch or two on the PC/SJW coddling. Because Trump/McConnell et al know how to turn that into noise too. But this is kind of a side tangent.
