This is a tad hyperbolic and ignores the fact that Democrats attempt to do the same thing. — Thorongil
And I don't want to see a "legitimate democracy" if by that you mean a pure, direct democracy.
Yes, but you're neglecting to mention the fact that Wayfarer is a pink-cloud flying 60s liberal spirituality guy. That's expected from him.I'm saying that the Republicans do, and so that they're not just guilty of turning a blind eye to Trump "destroying the republic in full view of everyone" (as Wayfarer puts it). — Michael
Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure.No, I mean that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to vote. So none of the suppression tactics that are designed to practically disenfranchise certain groups of people. — Michael
Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure. — Agustino
That - combined with the fact that Trump has utterly humiliated the media - encourages a one-sided portrayal of his Presidency. — Agustino
Politics is politics. The players of politics (that doesn't mean you the citizen) know this. Democracy, or oligarchy or dictatorship - they don't care. Just the means they have to employ to stay in power changes. For them, it's all the same, regardless of political system. That's one of the disadvantages of politics - it's all about power, even if the masks change. And that is true even if you're fighting for a good cause like Ghandi - Ghandi also had to be wise as a serpent and outmanoeuvre the British.You might be OK with a one-party authoritarian state, but most of us would prefer a legitimate democracy. — Michael
He did humiliate them DURING the elections - even merely by winning and then rubbing it in their faces.What alternative reality are you living in? He's only humiliating himself. — Michael
Why not? Politics is a battle, which requires wits and intelligence to win. Yes, underhanded tactics can always exist, and as a political opponent you should be aware of them, even if you don't use them yourself. So failure to be aware of them and finding a way to counter them is YOUR failure.
...
Politics is politics. The players of politics (that doesn't mean you the citizen) know this. Democracy, or oligarchy or dictatorship - they don't care. Just the means they have to employ to stay in power changes. For them, it's all the same, regardless of political system. That's one of the disadvantages of politics - it's all about power, even if the masks change. And that is true even if you're fighting for a good cause like Ghandi - Ghandi also had to be wise as a serpent and outmanoeuvre the British. — Agustino
Right, and since when is an internet forum the equivalent of politics? :s We're not here to battle out for political victory, so I don't understand at all why you're even making that reference. Do you consider the forum to be a political arena? And by the way Real Politik has little to do with principles. Ghandi had principles - he still had to be sly as a serpent though.This coming from someone who complains so much about the supposed injustice of the moderation here. — Michael
Right, and since when is an internet forum the equivalent of politics? :s We're not here to battle out for political victory, so I don't understand at all why you're even making that reference. Do you consider the forum to be a political arena? And by the way Real Politik has little to do with principles. Ghandi had principles - he still had to be sly as a serpent though.
Anyway, this ad hominem does you well - saves you from addressing any of my points. — Agustino
Yes, because they're doing politics. I don't expect them to play fair to begin with. That's how politics is. If I have an opponent in politics, I wouldn't expect him to play fair - you have to be ready for everything.You don't seem to care. — Michael
No it's not. I am concerned about injustice in those places where I can make a difference. If I was a political actor in America, I might be concerned about the injustice there too, because I could do something about it. But what's the point about being concerned about something you can't do anything about? You're not a political actor. Let political actors sort it out themselves, and don't have expectations of them. If you don't want to do that, then join politics and make a difference. But don't sit on the sidelines crying about X or Y. That's useless.And yet you do care about perceived injustice on this forum. This seems like inconsistent principles on your part. — Michael
To me personally, yes. But I don't expect this to hold true for others by necessity.So is justice important to you? — Michael
Yes, because they're doing politics. I don't expect them to play fair to begin with. That's how politics is. If I have an opponent in politics, I wouldn't expect him to play fair - you have to be ready for everything.
So what I'm talking about isn't whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm talking about your silly expectation that they would be just. That's the bigger problem. — Agustino
No it's not. I am concerned about injustice in those places where I can make a difference. If I was a political actor in America, I might be concerned about the injustice there too, because I could do something about it. But what's the point about being concerned about something you can't do anything about? You're not a political actor. Let political actors sort it out themselves, and don't have expectations of them. If you don't want to do that, then join politics and make a difference. But don't sit on the sidelines crying about X or Y. That's useless.
To me personally, yes. But I don't expect this to hold true for others by necessity.
Why? So that I give them the joy of laughing in my face?Then you should condemn the Republican party for their gerrymandering and voter suppression attempts, because they're being injustice. — Michael
Yeah, so what? It's a terrible thing. So? Is that gonna change it?I'm not saying that they would be just. I'm saying that they're not, and that this is a terrible thing. — Michael
I care about terrible things that I can do something about. If I can't do something about it then the energy I spend caring about it is wasted energy. It ain't going to change whatever happened. It's just going to fill my soul with negativity and put me down.What's the point? Jesus, are you just not human? People care about terrible things that happen in the world even if there's nothing they can do to stop them. — Michael
I'd say:How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? — Michael
So you'd rather be like one of those little girls crying about injustices around the world while sitting in their comfortable homes and doing nothing right? That's being a nice person right? Just sit back and say the right words, that will certainly fix the world up. Yeah that's certainly the way of fighting injustice. Condemning the Republicans... they must be rolling on the floor with laughter.That's pretty sociopathic. — Michael
I actually do agree with you here whole heartedly on the point that talk without action is self righteous thumb twiddling. Sitting in the pew knodding with the preacher does nothing for anyone if it doesn't motivate you to act. — Hanover
How come I supported Trump's election then? I'm a conservative, and everyone knows that.if the GOP had any real conservative principles, Trump would never have become leader — Wayfarer
I'm responding to the injustice here because there's something I can do about it, and it's certainly not expected of an online forum to turn political.My point is that he's showing inconsistent principles by arguing against perceived injustice here but responding to political injustice by simply saying that that's how the game is played. — Michael
No, I'm pretty sure that's not what sociopathic means.And also that it's sociopathic to not care about things just because you can't change them. — Michael
I'm not violating anyone's rights by not caring about things I can't do nothing about.The DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder as "[a] pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
• Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."
So you'd rather be like one of those little girls crying about injustices around the world while sitting in their comfortable homes and doing nothing right? That's being a nice person right? Just sit back and say the right words, that will certainly fix the world up. Yeah that's certainly the way of fighting injustice. Condemning the Republicans... they must be rolling on the floor with laughter.
The world doesn't care about cries. The world only changes with actions. You or me or anyone can cry as much as we want about all injustices. The world itself is silent. And God only helps those who dare take action.
I don't see any proposals for action in this thread. All I see is crying about this and that. — Agustino
Not true. If I were a dictator I'd worry most about those close to me betraying me, or organising rival factions. They control the power, not the public. The public can be used BY THEM to overthrow me. The public is always a political tool, never an actor. The public always requires someone to be led by. So someone from my entourage can use the public's lack of satisfaction with me to overthrow me, but it will always be someone who has control of state apparatus, whether it is secret services or military. They can quickly move the public to act, backed up by part of the state.If you were a dictator, you'd worry more about that than about the little armed rebellion your massive security forces easily put down. — Srap Tasmaner
Talk changes nothing. It may even be good for smart dictators. Let the dogs bark is one of the most effective way of appeasing public unrest, provided that the public isn't too intelligent to catch on. Just ask Michael, he likes applying the tactic ;)Talk is important — Srap Tasmaner
But hey, why bother, amirite? — Srap Tasmaner
I'm saying that the Republicans do, and so that they're not just guilty of turning a blind eye to Trump "destroying the republic in full view of everyone" — Michael
No, I mean that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to vote. So none of the suppression tactics that are designed to practically disenfranchise certain groups of people. — Michael
One of the main things citizens do is talk to each other. If your government does something you disagree with, it is important to talk about it. That doesn't have to be some big public display. You talk to your family and friends, just like you talk about anything else you care about. — Srap Tasmaner
Talk changes nothing. It may even be good for smart dictators. — Agustino
I don't get any more worked up over that than I do over the 15,000 or so murders that happen every day in the world. Do you just walk around perpetually horror stricken and if not why are those people more important to you than the rest? I keep rationally detached from the horror of the world by keeping in mind that while most people don't deserve it hardly any of us are inculpable either. We all collectively have created this world and if it's a bloody horror show then we're all in part responsible for that.How do you respond to the recent terror attacks? With a "meh, it happened; but I can't turn back time, so it's useless to dwell"? That's pretty sociopathic. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.