Trump vs. Biden

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

While I appreciate the few who attempt to start dialogue with those of opposing views, I have had too many experiences on here where it becomes untenable to sustain a healthy dynamic. For sure, I knew my initial post would be just too difficult to resist for many, and many assumptions about me and my motives have been made in the process, but if it's that easy, then it's clear to me that the overall hostility in threads such as these is not something that can be overcome.

Case in point, aside from my previous demonstration:

"There's at least a 20% chance that Biden will either start bleeding from the eyes, pisses on stage, or drops dead."
Response: "So you two have something in common after all."

These quotes are taken from the last page. On top of this, both Biden and Trump are presented as senile by so many without further thought. It is depressing indeed. The end result is a divide between factions that only widens. Ironic that in the age of information, communication takes such a hit.

You object to people being negative about Trump and participating in a circlejerk based upon maligning him. You also object to people criticizing both Biden and Trump for the same thing (incidentally, I am not sure how holding both people to the same standard is "widening a divide" between factions, unless you hold that criticism of Trump of any sort is "widening a divide" even when the same criticism is made of his opponent) I have not seen you object to people criticizing Biden. I also have seen you call people NPCs, so the issue cannot be just that people are not being nice to each other.

To me all of this points pretty clearly to one thing, but you're welcome to tell me how I'm drawing the wrong conclusion. You'd get more respect from me for just being more open about the MAGA stuff like Tellenbach.

 

[Jaguar]

"There's at least a 20% chance that GW Bush will either start bleeding from the eyes, pisses on stage, or drops dead."
"So you two have something in common after all."

"There's at least a 20% chance that Trump will either start bleeding from the eyes, pisses on stage, or drops dead."
"So you two have something in common after all."

Same response.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Actually, interpreting it as MAGA is the more charitable interpretation. The other one is that you're just being a troll.

 

[Boogie man]

You object to people being negative about Trump and participating in a circlejerk based upon maligning him. You also object to people criticizing both Biden and Trump for the same thing (incidentally, I am not sure how holding both people to the same standard is "widening a divide" between factions, unless you hold that criticism of Trump of any sort is "widening a divide" even when the same criticism is made of his opponent) I have not seen you object to people criticizing Biden. I also have seen you call people NPCs, so the issue cannot be just that people are not being nice to each other.

To me all of this points pretty clearly to one thing, but you're welcome to tell me how I'm drawing the wrong conclusion.

First I will call out a lie:
I have not called people "NPC's." That was another user' insinuation. You know: they assumed to know my stance on things without evidence.

As for the rest of your response, surely me critiquing this notion that both Trump and Biden are senile is me objecting to people criticizing Biden, is it not? Perhaps I should be more clear: pushing a black and white view on the psychological state of the candidates without evidence or proper evaluations means that you shut down conversation prematurely. It widens the divide because you won't allow either position to be redeemable. It is the position of nihilism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Boogie man]

To me all of this points pretty clearly to one thing, but you're welcome to tell me how I'm drawing the wrong conclusion. You'd get more respect from me for just being more open about the MAGA stuff like Tellenbach.

Actually, interpreting it as MAGA is the more charitable interpretation. The other one is that you're just being a troll.

I had responded before you edited your comment. Perhaps it's a mistake to further the conversation with you. Once more, you prove my initial point.

 

[Boogie man]

I will add that - because rereading my last argument it can be misinterpreted - people should criticize all candidates. My protest lies in that communication is made impossible by many ways, one of which is by blanket condemnations (which aren't critiques) of any party. It speaks to a lack of nuance and it kills dialogue and progress.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

First I will call out a lie:
I have not called people "NPC's." That was another user' insinuation. You know: they assumed to know my stance on things without evidence.

As for the rest of your response, surely me critiquing this notion that both Trump and Biden are senile is me objecting to people criticizing Biden, is it not? Perhaps I should be more clear: pushing a black and white view on the psychological state of the candidates without evidence or proper evaluations means that you shut down conversation prematurely. It widens the divide because you won't allow either position to be redeemable. It is the position of nihilism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Why is it wrong for me to make the claim? Perhaps it would be easier for you to avoid being misinterpreted if you actually stated what your positions were. Do you hold that Biden is senile, and not Trump? Do you hold that Trump is senile, and not Biden? Do you hold that neither are senile?

To me, they have a history of bizarre behavior and utterances that would be comical if they weren't powerful men. Hence, the senile comment. I truly believe neither of these men are what this country actually needs, which is perhaps the most important.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I do, however, want Trump voted out, so I will nonetheless vote for Biden. I do feel some measure of disgust that I keep having to make choices like this, however.

We boast of how free we are and, yet, I never have the practical opportunity to vote for someone who I think would actually be a good leader.

I am so tired of it.

 

[Jaguar]

"You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

"You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

That's a good quote. Where does that come from?

 

[Jaguar]

That's a good quote. Where does that come from?

 

[Boogie man]

Why is it wrong for me to make the claim? Perhaps it would be easier for you to avoid being misinterpreted if you actually stated what your positions were. Do you hold that Biden is senile, and not Trump? Do you hold that Trump is senile, and not Biden? Do you hold that neither are senile?

Are you a psychiatrist who has personally counselled these men and ran tests that confirmed the diagnosis of dementia?
Rhetorical question.

To me, they have a history of bizarre behavior and utterances that would be comical if they weren't powerful men. Hence, the senile comment. I truly believe neither of these men are what this country actually needs, which is perhaps the most important.

"Bizarre behavior and utterances" is not much of an indicator. Perhaps the debates will shed more light on this.

It's one thing to say that you don't think either candidate has the types of policies and leadership that you would wish for the USA, but calling both men senile does nothing but condemn either as no good. There is no conversation to be had about it, because it is a final judgment based on close to nothing.

In the same spirit, reducing my character to be either "MAGA" or "troll" does little for this conversation. And the little that it does ain't no good.

Perhaps it is frustrating that I do not claim "team Biden" or "team Trump" or "team they-all-suck," but so be it. I don't enjoy playing teams as I'm rather individualistic. That said, I enjoy seeing that people understand that their personal view isn't the only valid one.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Are you a psychiatrist who has personally counselled these men and ran tests that confirmed the diagnosis of dementia?
Rhetorical question.

What is your actual opinion on the matter? What do you actually think of the two candidates? I would very much like to know, and I think it would be important if you truly want to have a productive conversation. I thought it was rather obvious that my comment about senility was an off-the-cuff complaint about the shittiness of politics in the U.S. rather than a medical diagnosis.

It's one thing to say that you don't think either candidate has the types of policies and leadership that you would wish for the USA, but calling both men senile does nothing but condemn either as no good. There is no conversation to be had about it, because it is a final judgment based on close to nothing.

And? I happen to think that they both aren't good. I have a very hard time understanding why you find this objectionable while previously in this thread, you were complaining about how this was an echo chamber. What sorts of posts would you like to see in this thread? You seem to find pro-Biden anti-Trump posts objectionable, but you also pounced on and derided a post that didn't fall into that category. I think it would help people understand where you are coming from if you could better articulate your actual positions and what you'd actually like to see in this thread. I think it makes people suspicious that you spend so much time criticizing the opinions of others while not actually bothering to put your own on the line. If you were to do that, I think it would dispel that suspicion.

Perhaps it is frustrating that I do not claim "team Biden" or "team Trump" or "team they-all-suck," but so be it. I don't enjoy playing teams as I'm rather individualistic. That said, I enjoy seeing that people understand that their personal view isn't the only valid one.

That's all well and good, but what precisely is your own individualistic viewpoint? You seem upset that people are misinterpreting and mischaracterizing you, but you have not made much effort to clarify your own positions.

 

[Boogie man]

What is your actual opinion on the matter? What do you actually think of the two candidates? I would very much like to know, and I think it would be important if you truly want to have a productive conversation. I thought it was rather obvious that my comment about senility was an off-the-cuff complaint about the shittiness of politics in the U.S. rather than a medical diagnosis.

Rather obvious or not, those comments are what have come to define this thread. The latest actual news on here seems to be about Trump's taxes. So far, no commentators have shown an understanding of finance, and while ignorance in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it becomes laughable when it is used as a basis for judgment.

And? I happen to think that they both aren't good. I have a very hard time understanding why you find this objectionable while previously in this thread, you were complaining about how this was an echo chamber. What sorts of posts would you like to see in this thread? You seem to find pro-Biden anti-Trump posts objectionable, but you also pounced on and derided a post that didn't fall into that category. I think it would help people understand where you are coming from if you could better articulate your actual positions and what you'd actually like to see in this thread. I think it makes people suspicious that you spend so much time criticizing the opinions of others while not actually bothering to put your own on the line. If you were to do that, I think it would dispel that suspicion.

I have had a hard time finding pro-Biden posts in here. The vast majority has been anti-Trump with what seems to be a sudden realization that he's not the only candidate. The lack of expansive viewpoints in here is what makes it an echo chamber.

That's all well and good, but what precisely is your own individualistic viewpoint? You seem upset that people are misinterpreting and mischaracterizing you, but you have not made much effort to clarify your own positions.

I'm not very upset about the mischaracterizations. It may be a bit jarring at first, but overall it is very confirming of the current climate. In that sense, having "MAGA" or "troll" pushed on me is a validation of my viewpoint: namely that the current discourse is happening with blinders on. Be mindful not to run off a cliff. -> I say that's a better motto than "MAGA" or "BBB."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Rather obvious or not, those comments are what have come to define this thread. The latest actual news on here seems to be about Trump's taxes. So far, no commentators have shown an understanding of finance, and while ignorance in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it becomes laughable when it is used as a basis for judgment.


I have had a hard time finding pro-Biden posts in here. The vast majority has been anti-Trump with what seems to be a sudden realization that he's not the only candidate. The lack of expansive viewpoints in here is what makes it an echo chamber.


I'm not very upset about the mischaracterizations. It may be a bit jarring at first, but overall it is very confirming of the current climate. In that sense, having "MAGA" or "troll" pushed on me is a validation of my viewpoint: namely that the current discourse is happening with blinders on. Be mindful not to run off a cliff. -> I say that's a better motto than "MAGA" or "BBB."

You still have not told me what I wish to know. We can engage in an honest discussion when you share your own thoughts. Otherwise, mischaracterization is difficult to avoid.

 

[Jaguar]

Can a mod clean up the shit all over again? Thanks.

 

[Boogie man]

You still have not told me what I wish to know. We can engage in an honest discussion when you share your own thoughts. Otherwise, mischaracterization is difficult to avoid.

I'm left rather cold about your wishes, though I'm sure this comes as no surprise. However, contrary to your earlier statement, I have made effort to clarify my position. It may not have been in the form that you prefer, be it maga or troll, but the answer stands.

 

[Boogie man]

Can a mod clean up the shit all over again? Thanks.

Just because you do not enjoy a particular conversation doesn't mean that you should ask for it to be censored. Your response does vindicate my position, however: shutting out dissenting voices kills thought.

To quote what you have written in your signature:

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief.
― Gerry Spence"

 

[Jaguar]

Just because you do not enjoy a particular conversation [...]

There is no conversation whatsoever.