Politics And Current Events

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/7 ... 1449332736

[Algernon]

If you're pro-life you're a quixotic delusional most likely arrogant dbag

[Freddy Rumsen]

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/793886760002543616

[Troy Loney]

Sharia Law?

[Algernon]

What's funny to me is that I would be called crazy for subscribing to worries about devolution, over population, anti-intellectualism, weaponized religion, etc

But people here subscribe to grocery store tabloid level political bullshit on twitter as if that's not insane

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/WashTimes/status/793859157707329537

[NTP66]

What timing.

[dodint]

https://twitter.com/RyanTAnd/status/793867236591140864

Jokes on them, I just took the easy way and went to a white, heterosexual, and cisgender law school. The worst thing they did was start a mini-cohort of students from Texas.

[Reveutopique]

Makes me feel like I can't leave my children alone with them.... Probably come home saying the N word or something.

Respectfully, the fact that you don't understand your parent's motivations for voting for Trump does not mean that your parents are operating out of malice, stupidity, or other illegitimate motives.

No but the possibility is there.

Perhaps. Perhaps Reveutopique's parents are closet Nazis who keep a secret room in their house where they keep a candle burning in front of a framed picture of Hitler. Perhaps they're racists with Klan hoods in the back of their closets. Maybe they're members of some satanic church of rape and are indeed voting for Trump out of the hope that Trump will legalize grabbing every women in the nation by the p****. But most likely they're people who operate rationally and with good faith and nonetheless came to different conclusions.

I'm not speaking specifically about any one here, but it's my observation that a whole lot of people totally suck at disagreement. They simply can't fathom how anyone could look at a certain set of facts and come to a conclusion that differs from their own, so they want to jump to the conclusion that the disagreement must be based on malice or stupidity. While it might be, it's probably not. People operate out of different motivations and have different priorities. The vast majority of those motivations are not objectively wrong (such as advocating for murder).

As a lawyer I disagree with people for a living. There's always someone else disagreeing with me, and I can't just dismiss them because (not surprisingly) resorting to calling the other side a bunch of morons or Hitlers is not considered by judges to be a valid legal argument. Perhaps that makes me more accustomed to dissent than a lot of people.

No, theyre just fox news viewers; voters

Well, what I think he's saying is that they have different experiences and world view due to a bunch of different factors where their thought process, though different than mine, is still logical to them.

Even though it may seem illogical to me, to them it makes perfect sense bc their values might be different or maybe they weight the issues differently than I do.

I think a combination of those factors contribute to the rift between generations alot of the time.

I mean their world view leads them to watch Fox News.

Can't say I always disagree with them on issues of money. It just doesn't stop my heart from breaking knowing they voted for someone who has admitted to like. ..any of the things that sexual assault mop has admitted to.

Tangent: I love lawyers. They are so great! Their world is so interesting. I have the utmost respect for them. I think I feel this way bc I did some mock trial in hs and the lawyers were great. There were 2 of them. They worked at least 80 hours per week and still took time out to coach us and they were always nice. Just incredible people.

[grunthy]

What is it like voting for someone who is married to a person accused of rape and sexual assault?

[Freddy Rumsen]

nobody'd

[Algernon]

nobody what's it like being a ******?

[NTP66]

[columbia]

As I recall, she's not voting for Clinton.

[Shyster]

Well, what I think he's saying is that they have different experiences and world view due to a bunch of different factors where their thought process, though different than mine, is still logical to them.

Even though it may seem illogical to me, to them it makes perfect sense bc their values might be different or maybe they weight the issues differently than I do.

Indeed my point. People have different moral motivations, and the mere fact that someone else is operating out of different motivations does not mean they are operating out of bad motivations. But people too often jump to the conclusion that they are.

Jonathan Haidt has a book out called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion that discusses this topic (I must admit that I own it but haven't yet read all of it). For a thumbnail sketch, Haidt's premise is that that just as people have the taste receptors of salt, sweet, bitter, and so on, people operate on different moral motivations. Haidt boils those motivations down to a list of five: caring, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. He also posits that people with different political leanings are dominated by different entries on that list. For example, Haidt believes that people who identify as politically liberal are governed more by caring and fairness and don't care all that much about sanctity. Conservatives are much more influenced by loyalty, authority and sanctity. It's not that conservatives "don't care" or that liberals have no respect for authority, but they place less emphasis on those motivations in favor of others.

Assuming for the sake of argument Haidt's five motivations have some basis in reality, I think most of us would agree that the entries on that list are not inherently evil or would only motivate stupid or gullible people. It's certainly possible that I personally cannot understand who someone would operate under a different set of motivations than me, and I certainly might believe that person's views are incorrect, but that doesn't mean that other person is acting illegitimately. "Incorrect" and "bad" are not the same thing. I just see way, way to many people (like some "friends" on my Facebook feed) who fail to make the distinction. If you disagree with someone else's views, it is not a valid counter-argument to assert they are bad, evil, stupid, foolish, gullible, etc. because they almost certainly aren't. If you disagree with someone else's views, then explain how they are wrong.

[grunthy]

nobody what's it like being a ******?

Not bad.

[Reveutopique]

quote="Shyster"]

Well, what I think he's saying is that they have different experiences and world view due to a bunch of different factors where their thought process, though different than mine, is still logical to them.

Even though it may seem illogical to me, to them it makes perfect sense bc their values might be different or maybe they weight the issues differently than I do.

Indeed my point. People have different moral motivations, and the mere fact that someone else is operating out of different motivations does not mean they are operating out of bad motivations. But people too often jump to the conclusion that they are.

Jonathan Haidt has a book out called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion that discusses this topic (I must admit that I own it but haven't yet read all of it). For a thumbnail sketch, Haidt's premise is that that just as people have the taste receptors of salt, sweet, bitter, and so on, people operate on different moral motivations. Haidt boils those motivations down to a list of five: caring, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. He also posits that people with different political leanings are dominated by different entries on that list. For example, Haidt believes that people who identify as politically liberal are governed more by caring and fairness and don't care all that much about sanctity. Conservatives are much more influenced by loyalty, authority and sanctity. It's not that conservatives "don't care" or that liberals have no respect for authority, but they place less emphasis on those motivations in favor of others.

Assuming for the sake of argument Haidt's five motivations have some basis in reality, I think most of us would agree that the entries on that list are not inherently evil or would only motivate stupid or gullible people. It's certainly possible that I personally cannot understand who someone would operate under a different set of motivations than me, and I certainly might believe that person's views are incorrect, but that doesn't mean that other person is acting illegitimately. "Incorrect" and "bad" are not the same thing. I just see way, way to many people (like some "friends" on my Facebook feed) who fail to make the distinction. If you disagree with someone else's views, it is not a valid counter-argument to assert they are bad, evil, stupid, foolish, gullible, etc. because they almost certainly aren't. If you disagree with someone else's views, then explain how they are wrong.[/quote]

That is interesting. Regarding the taste thing I feel maybe it's the difference between people. Some prefer salty, some sweet, some bitter even. Same with politics and religion.

Also I don't know how it feels to vote for someone who is married to someone who is accused of rape and sexual assault. I hope I never know.

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/AceofSpadesHQ/statu ... 7600251904

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status ... 4343003136

[Gaucho]

https://twitter.com/AceofSpadesHQ/statu ... 7600251904

This is a joke, right? Right? Please?

[Gaucho]

I don't believe people are stupider (!) than they used to be. But they have Twitter now.

[Freddy Rumsen]

https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/7 ... 8953008129

[grunthy]

I don't believe people are stupider (!) than they used to be. But they have Twitter now.

I don't think people are more stupid, I just think there are more stupid people.

[Gaucho]

Well, according to you overpopulation is not a problem.