The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I have no problem making the generalizations I did when it seems that the "norm" is indeed Baaaaad.

So again, what you've said is generalizations are OK if you happen to come to the conclusion about those generalizations in a way you think is logical.

I would argue that other people may come up with generalizations having come to conclusions which to them are logical. However, certain ones seem to be not acceptable while others are, depending on the group think about the generalization.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex

Personally, I don't consider being called arrogant or delusional to actually be name calling, except insofar as attaching an adjective to a specific person is always name calling. If "you're an arrogant person" is name calling then so is "you're a wonderful person."


All of it is really just my long winded way of saying that despite protests to the contrary there is around these parts a decided slant in when feelings need to be collectively protected from bruising.

Ultimately it affects me little, since I am generally capable of making is perfectly clear that I think someone a fool or whatever adjective is appropriate without actually saying it. But it does fall into that same category as to why it is ok to say fothermucker but not mother****er when the intent and context are exactly the same.

Alex, this post illustrates your point of view well, but it dilutes the actual statement made by Leo. If he had said "I think your being kind of arrogant in your posts", etc, then no problem. (Not meaning to harp on that one, Scaeagles, but I'm trying to spell out the differences). And yes, we do have a slant, but what message board doesn't? I think we're all pretty cool here and try our best to get along with each other, but we have not been shy about spelling out our reasons for existence and the rules that we've laid out to try and make it as pleasant an experience for the membership as possible. I can't recall the last time someone said anything remotely negative to Scaeagles outside of the political threads- if we're so horrid, why put up with us? We all care about Scaeagles and the appearance of favoritism is a concern, but none of you (save the Mods and Admins) know everything that is reported and what actions were taken. Again, if someone were to call Leo the same thing he was warned over, I really would be upset and I would go after them as well.

[scaeagles]

Really, I don't mind being called delusional. I don't mind being called a sheep (which I was - since I believe in left wing media bias I must be one of the sheep being fed). I just know that when I have, in the past, made broad generalizations about democrats or people who believe something I have been chastized (not officially mind you, but by others who are offended at my generalizations).

Because of how often I felt this was happening, I decided to start calling others on generalizations they posted, or using names such a delusional (which JW was calling me, or rather a group of people of which I am a member - it wasn't ISM), which really isn't any different than being called arrogant. Whether we want to discuss the admittedly wrong thing I said to 3894 or not, even calling Obama elitist or arrogant, whom last I checked was not a member of the LoT, was the cause of much outrage.

Name calling or generalizations are easy to defend if you agree with them. If you disagree then they are just name calling or generalizations.

[innerSpaceman]

NA's post reminds me that Republicans adoring the myth of small town America still existing are further delusional because it's the policies of the Republican party that are most responsible for its replacement by Corporate America.


Let the Red States have their own nation in the middle. Let them eat Wheat. We'll take the coastlines and be done with it. They can have the name United States of America, but we keep the capital of Washington because, like just about everything else remotely civilized, it's on the coasts.

Then all the morons can relocate to the interior. And all the educated can flee the interior for the coasts. Enough with purple state confusion. Let's just admit we are two nations that cannot abide each other and have done with it. (And then get down to the business of the next hundred years in further sub-dividing each resulting nation into their own two fragments that can't abide each other.)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

(And then get down to the business of the next hundred years in further sub-dividing each resulting nation into their own two fragments that can't abide each other.)

I knew you were a Libertarian at heart.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Then all the morons can relocate to the interior. And all the educated can flee the interior for the coasts.

I could be so obtuse with this line......

But I'll spare you the aggravation

[Chernabog]

^^ Are the blue states the Confederates or the Yanks?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

^^ Are the blue states the Confederates or the Yanks?

I tend to think there'll be more masturbation (allowed) in the blue states, so I guess we'll be the Yanks.

[scaeagles]

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

Well, generally speaking- the LoT is comprised of a motley crew, but it seems most tend toward liberal policy as opposed to conservative. You can make the same sorts of comments, just no personal attacks. Or, we could all just forget about discussing politics in general. It's not the same to call someone's viewpoint delusional, especially if a decent rebuttal is provided, as opposed to calling someone "the most condescending and arrogant poster here". I really don't get why you don't get that, but when a person has to resort to personal attacks any discussion is over and Rove Syndrome has set in. Really, if I were to post at a conservative leaning website I would probably be torn to shreds.