- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MTG trending with her #NationalDivorce tweet
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:31 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:31 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Indeed. They built this government on the principle of compromise,
The left gave that up decades ago.
1
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:41 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Do I? Increased national identification and relative pulling in similar directions hasn't existed anywhere? It existed here 40 years ago.
It seems like you want to read into the past what you want to see. Arguably, the intake of common forms of media did more for that belief in sameness than anything else. With the disparate media landscape, we still have incredible commonality, and less relative 'regionification' but also more awareness of differences. A big part of what has been occurring in the business world is a similar pattern of conglomeration that occurred with other forms of media, with the corporatization of social media nearly complete.
The standardization project through media hasn't been centralized, such as the standardization project in France, but it is exceedingly effective. You perhaps dislike that the standardization isn't going in the direction you like.
Even then, 40 years ago, the violent crime rate was around 1.5 times greater than the crime rate now, which doesn't suggest that 'increased national identification' and 'relative pulling' had any great effects.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:44 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
We can't claim the Forefathers were giants and then shite over everything they accomplished.
Indeed. They built this government on the principle of compromise, and now that's seen as a bad word.
the purity police reject anyone who is making deals.
so nothing can be accomplished.
the founding fathers had a
common economic issue. there was a massive compromise on the value of a slave as a human.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:44 am to WildTchoupitoulas
The hard truth is that the two sides want futures so radically different that in order for one side to realize their outcome the other must suffer unacceptable levels of tyranny.
Its as simple as that.
You can't have one side that wants to live in Mayberry and the other that wants the nation to operate like New Orleans or Portland. Only one of those visions can be realized.
A strong majority of republicans and over 40% of Americans believe the last election was stolen.
Guardian - Over 40% of Americans Believe Election Stolen
A sizeable percentage of democrats agree, but don't care because they view it as justified to remove Trump.
So the right is showing levels of mistrust of the government and associated institutions not seen since 1860 while the left wants the government to have more power.
The two sides can't even agree on basic facts because the "news" they consume is directly contradictory, making discourse impossible.
The two sides are divided by what brands they will use and which movies they will watch and routinely cancel individuals on the other side with the intent of getting them fired for simply voicing a political opinion they don't like.
They view the other side as not simply wrong, but dangerously wrong to such a degree that families and friends are being split along partisan lines.
Do a web search to see how many times the words "threat to democracy" is being used to describe republicans by major news outlets and democrats. Unfortunately because their fundamental view of what the nation is differs so dramatically from the right to some degree they are correct.
The bottom line is the nation is shattered culturally and politically and either one side is going to dominate the other using force or the two sides are going to split as soon as the bill for the astoundingly bad spending decisions DC has made over the last two generations comes due.
Its as simple as that.
You can't have one side that wants to live in Mayberry and the other that wants the nation to operate like New Orleans or Portland. Only one of those visions can be realized.
A strong majority of republicans and over 40% of Americans believe the last election was stolen.
Guardian - Over 40% of Americans Believe Election Stolen
A sizeable percentage of democrats agree, but don't care because they view it as justified to remove Trump.
So the right is showing levels of mistrust of the government and associated institutions not seen since 1860 while the left wants the government to have more power.
The two sides can't even agree on basic facts because the "news" they consume is directly contradictory, making discourse impossible.
The two sides are divided by what brands they will use and which movies they will watch and routinely cancel individuals on the other side with the intent of getting them fired for simply voicing a political opinion they don't like.
They view the other side as not simply wrong, but dangerously wrong to such a degree that families and friends are being split along partisan lines.
Do a web search to see how many times the words "threat to democracy" is being used to describe republicans by major news outlets and democrats. Unfortunately because their fundamental view of what the nation is differs so dramatically from the right to some degree they are correct.
The bottom line is the nation is shattered culturally and politically and either one side is going to dominate the other using force or the two sides are going to split as soon as the bill for the astoundingly bad spending decisions DC has made over the last two generations comes due.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:45 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
the relative sudden rise of cable news and social media that are driving this divide
Why do you want people standing between your food stamp, gubment health care and tranny bullshite? Let them split and you'll get your little purple haired utopia.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:47 am to roadGator
quote:
left gave that up decades ago.
Because they are revolutionaries. They truly believe your evil because you disapprove of their fairy tales.
Compromise is impossible with people who can't define woman.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 10:53 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Why do you want people standing between your food stamp, gubment health care and tranny bullshite? Let them split and you'll get your little purple haired utopia.
The funny part is CA is basically ready to go now.
If they were allowed to go the rest of the nation would have to address it because similar to the Missouri Compromise era the status quo would be destroyed and the new equilibrium would be unacceptable to the blue states that remained similar to what would happen if TX were to leave on the other side.
Its a broken situation propped up with debt from the fed and inertia.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:04 am to tide06
quote:
threat to democracy" is being used to describe republicans
trump recently called for being installed as president and said the usual constitutional processes can be skipped because there was soooo much fraud and mail.
that was not roundly crushed as preposterous by td or Mccarthy.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:09 am to CelticDog
quote:
trump recently called for being installed as president and said the usual constitutional processes can be skipped because there was soooo much fraud and mail.
that was not roundly crushed as preposterous by td or Mccarthy.
So... you agree that republicans are a threat to democracy?
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:21 am to tide06
Right off the bat, there's a major problem with your post:
That's a false dichotomy. There are 333 million "sides". People allow themselves to be herded into sides because they crave membership in a group. It's part of our social instincts. But it leads to manipulation.
Here's an example:
I don't want either one. I suspect the majority of Americans would agree with me.
There's a recency bias there. The fallout from Republicans refusing to accept the outcome of the last election is still very much in the news cycles. A largely Republican mob storming the capitol while Congress was conducting the business of the peaceful transfer of executive power is going to be seen by most reasonable people as at least some kind of threat to democracy. But I remember in the not too distant past when Democrats (liberals) were labelled as the threat to democracy as they protested the Vietnam War and disrupted the election process in 1968.
And here we get to the actual crux of the problem:
It's almost as if all the bullshite (from both sides) is designed to simply distract our attention away from the fact that we're quickly getting to the point that 100% of the government's revenue will have to go towards servicing debt.
Ideology isn't the biggest threat to our democracy, economics is.
quote:
The hard truth is that the two sides
That's a false dichotomy. There are 333 million "sides". People allow themselves to be herded into sides because they crave membership in a group. It's part of our social instincts. But it leads to manipulation.
Here's an example:
quote:
You can't have one side that wants to live in Mayberry and the other that wants the nation to operate like New Orleans or Portland.
I don't want either one. I suspect the majority of Americans would agree with me.
quote:
Do a web search to see how many times the words "threat to democracy" is being used to describe republicans by major news outlets and democrats.
There's a recency bias there. The fallout from Republicans refusing to accept the outcome of the last election is still very much in the news cycles. A largely Republican mob storming the capitol while Congress was conducting the business of the peaceful transfer of executive power is going to be seen by most reasonable people as at least some kind of threat to democracy. But I remember in the not too distant past when Democrats (liberals) were labelled as the threat to democracy as they protested the Vietnam War and disrupted the election process in 1968.
And here we get to the actual crux of the problem:
quote:
the astoundingly bad spending decisions DC has made
It's almost as if all the bullshite (from both sides) is designed to simply distract our attention away from the fact that we're quickly getting to the point that 100% of the government's revenue will have to go towards servicing debt.
Ideology isn't the biggest threat to our democracy, economics is.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:28 am to Pettifogger
quote:
"it's nice out, go have a beer and you can amicably talk about the Braves with the guy who would tell your son he can be a girl"
Jesus, man, where do you fricking live?
Most of the people I talk to just aren't into all the gender bending shite. Maybe it's because there just aren't a lot of school aged kids in my neighborhood, or the ones that are here go to private schools that don't seem to have the gender issues public schools do. But it really never comes up.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:35 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
It seems like you want to read into the past what you want to see.
I'm not a romantic for the past. But our disputes were in the same language. We're not doing that now. We can't agree on relatively simplistic pillars from which to plot the course forward.
quote:
Even then, 40 years ago, the violent crime rate was around 1.5 times greater than the crime rate now, which doesn't suggest that 'increased national identification' and 'relative pulling' had any great effects.
Ok, let's shift it 10 years forward or back. Or use another metric. What did national religious identification 40 years ago say? What did church attendance self-reporting say? What did optimism for the future say? Etc.
Trying to get wildly distinct groups to stay together because the risk of breaking up geopolitical hegemony is too great is one thing
Pretending we're not increasingly fractured and that it is impacting pretty much every "felt" measurement of the population is quite another.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:44 am to IkeandTina
Examine the per capita demographics of welfare recipients. Any of the non-Democrats who on welfare will either have to go to work and get off of it or need to move to blue states to get it. Pretty simple.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:47 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Most of the people I talk to just aren't into all the gender bending shite. Maybe it's because there just aren't a lot of school aged kids in my neighborhood, or the ones that are here go to private schools that don't seem to have the gender issues public schools do. But it really never comes up.
Eh, I'm not talking about some outspoken advocate. I'm talking about the "normal" people who quietly vote for this stuff and express support for it when around like minded people.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:52 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
You perhaps dislike that the standardization isn't going in the direction you like.
It's dumb. The world is a better place with disparate ideology and people deserve a responsive giovtct that appeals to their sensibilities.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:53 am to tide06
quote:
search to see how many times the words "threat to democracy" is being used to describe republicans by major news outlets and democrats.
Democrats can't define democracy. A bit ironic..
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:54 am to Decatur
quote:
She's very dumb.
What's your solution?
I got it let's just stick the people that want to shower with little girls, pinch little girls tits in national television, put an equity department in every part of government for everyone but the straight white male, let 5 year olds to have the power to decide they "medically" want to chop off their tits and penises, grown men dress as women and grind their junk on the floor while doing story hour.
Oh shite that's democrats and liberals, EXACTLY what her tweet suggested
This post was edited on 2/21/23 at 11:55 am
Posted on 2/21/23 at 11:54 am to Pettifogger
quote:
What did national religious identification 40 years ago say? What did church attendance self-reporting say? What did optimism for the future say? Etc.
Why are these more important than economics? Culturally contingent descriptions are still culturally contingent. Cultures are mutable. That fact presents its own problems, as humans feel groundless when technology shifts cultural conversations quickly.
quote:
Trying to get wildly distinct groups to stay together because the risk of breaking up geopolitical hegemony is too great is one thing
That's what Imperial systems did.
quote:
Pretending we're not increasingly fractured and that it is impacting pretty much every "felt" measurement of the population is quite another.
But human relations themselves are fractured. Again, supposed closeness of ideals, genetics, ethnicity, religion, etc., has not prevented human conflict. Humans, for better or worse, are designed to compete. The only thing that has prevented human conflict is economic integration. Or rather, it moves conflict from a place where the costs are high, i.e. war, to places where the costs are extremely low, i.e. institutionalized bureaucracy.
quote:
But our disputes were in the same language. We're not doing that now. We can't agree on relatively simplistic pillars from which to plot the course forward.
I reject this notion out of hand. Our disputes are not nearly of the same scale as they once were, and are mostly imagined. Fukayama put it best when he suggested that people would invent causes by virtue of how seamless economic integration was. You aren't giving credit to how far apart different sides were after the CW.
In my view, intra-cultural competition is a net good, as it forces stagnant cultures to adapt. And that's the one truism of human relations, especially in an age where technology can obliterate and displace mediums of interactions almost immediately.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 12:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Ideology isn't the biggest threat to our democracy, economics is.
Ideology is meant to divide us so that those who are actually in power can do what they want.
But as long as the social/media programming is in place to push identity politics and they can buy off 40%+ of the population using fake money printed by the fed under the auspices of modern monetary theory their base of control is sustained and nothing can change.
There is also the issue of the fact that right now no one knows how to fix the unfathomable fiscal issues that we face while living up to the false promises of the "just print more money" era without completely upending the apple cart and starting over with a reset of some sort.
You say you don't want to live in either Mayberry or Portland, yet under the current structure we are being made to choose from those two options.
Given a new governmental structure which only has to represent a divide between the historic liberals vs modern progressives or between MAGA and the country club RNC crowd we could debate nuances and better reflect your "333 million sides" (which I agree with theoretically, but not functionally for a myriad of reasons BTW).
Unfortunately we have exceeded the elasticity of the current strong "FedGov" era as the progressives go ever further left to the Western European post Judeo-Christian model and the right increasingly says not one more inch.
Posted on 2/21/23 at 12:08 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
In my view, intra-cultural competition is a net good, as it forces stagnant cultures to adapt. And that's the one truism of human relations, especially in an age where technology can obliterate and displace mediums of interactions almost immediately.
This.
There's a natural political/cultural tension that is healthy when the opposing forces are in balance. We shouldn't try to homogenize culture and thought, but rather strive to maintain the balance, generally through compromise.
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News