Elections Pelosi pulling the hypocritical, hyperbolic (D) line about Trump not conceding really, really early

Sure Jack. Then why mention nukes at all in a response? What was the point? The guy who made the "it would be civil war" comment knows full well that the US has a nuclear arsenal at it's disposal.

The mention of nukes was to illustrate the superior firepower of America against traitors. And then he follows that by saying that discussion is better. As I said, what an evil monster! Wants to talk instead of starting a war! How dare he?

Do you actually follow Swalwell on Twitter? Might want to check both of his accounts just to see how truly NOT interested in the discussion he is . . . he wants to dictate what we'll do.

Regardless . . . are we through with this yet? Seems like we keep repeating the same crap over and over.

I don't follow Swalwell. You posted a tweet and then misrepresented what it said.

I mean, I think we were through the second the quote was posted. But, as I said (and this is the more significant point), right-wing political culture in America today strongly discourages rational pursuit of truth. That's the point I made in the other thread. Some of us think that there exists objective truth that is separate from tribal desires, that that truth can be known to some extent, that logic and evidence are the paths to true knowledge, and that discussion can be a useful part of the process of processing evidence and checking logic. But on the right, discussion is just used as a means to enforce conformity through social pressure (attacking non-believers in tribal truth can discourage others and agreeing with each other strengthens the community).
 
The mention of nukes was to illustrate the superior firepower of America against traitors. And then he follows that by saying that discussion is better. As I said, what an evil monster! Wants to talk instead of starting a war! How dare he?

So we're not done then I take it . . . .

People standing up for our 2A rights against a tyrannical idiot like Swalwell = traitors . . . . Swalwell's response = reasonable . . . yet I'm the irrational person.


I don't follow Swalwell. You posted a tweet and then misrepresented what it said.

Yep. Sure. I didn't do that but you're going to keep pushing that to help you prove a point you're wanting make.

I mean, I think we were through the second the quote was posted.

Why? Because you felt like I should've just shut up and agreed with you?

But, as I said (and this is the more significant point), right-wing political culture in America today strongly discourages rational pursuit of truth.

As do a lot of the front runners for the Democratic nomination . . . they make hyperbolic statements to bring attention to an issue that really isn't an issue . . . Booker is telling everyone that he's going to end some "gun violence epidemic" with some magic pill to save us all.

That's the point I made in the other thread. Some of us think that there exists objective truth that is separate from tribal desires, that that truth can be known to some extent, that logic and evidence are the paths to true knowledge, and that discussion can be a useful part of the process of processing evidence and checking logic. But on the right, discussion is just used as a means to enforce conformity through social pressure (attacking non-believers in tribal truth can discourage others and agreeing with each other strengthens the community).

It's not just one side who acts like this . . . that is the point others were also making. Can we all do better? Sure we can . . .
 
So we're not done then I take it . . . .

People standing up for our 2A rights against a tyrannical idiot like Swalwell = traitors . . . . Swalwell's response = reasonable . . . yet I'm the irrational person.

The tyrannical idiot is the guy saying that he'll try to start a war if a law he doesn't like is passed. The non-tyrannical response is to say, as Swalwell did, that they should talk about it and try to reach a mutually agreeable solution.

Yep. Sure. I didn't do that but you're going to keep pushing that to help you prove a point you're wanting make.

No, you totally did.

Why? Because you felt like I should've just shut up and agreed with you?

You're dishonestly trying to frame it as "agreeing with me," as if we just both have our opinions. You should agree that the quote was what it objectively was. Your framework here is in line with the problem I've identified. You don't see us as both trying to make an appeal to objective truth, you're presenting it as just two sides.

As do a lot of the front runners for the Democratic nomination . . . they make hyperbolic statements to bring attention to an issue that really isn't an issue . . . Booker is telling everyone that he's going to end some "gun violence epidemic" with some magic pill to save us all.

And this illustrates that you don't understand my point. If you think Booker's ideas for reducing mass shootings are wrong, that's fine. You might be right or he might be right. Compare his ideas to reality. I have certainly never claimed that a good-faith effort to understand reality = 100% of the time you are right. My claim is that there is a difference between trying to understand reality and trying to win submission/solidarity, and one mode is dominant on the mainstream left and another mode is dominant on the mainstream right in America at this time.

It's not just one side who acts like this . . . that is the point others were also making. Can we all do better? Sure we can . . .

Where are the right-wingers who seem to care about getting things right? I don't see them here, I rarely see them in the right-wing media (and the ones who are there are on the outs with the movement, like Tom Nichols or Bruce Bartlett), and I don't see them in American politics.
 
Why is it that when persons are losing an argument to @Jack V Savage they start compulsively calling him by name? "Come on, Jackie," "sure, Jack," etc.
 
Back
Top