SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225

Mitch McConnell was dead set against a president being able to nominate a supreme court justice during his lame duck period... right up until it was Trump doing said nominating. It was basically impossible for a significant chunk of Obama's first term to avoid hearing Republicans accusing Obama of not being a US citizen, when there is zero chance they would fight so vociferously against someone on their side.
I never said that the Democrats are perfect angels who act morally and have the people's interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. But they are not the only ones who fight dirty in politics and are willing to break norms of good behavior. Anyone who claims that the past 20 years has been a pattern of the Democrats misbehaving as the Republicans try to take the high ground is woefully misinformed at best, and more likely is a partisan hypocrite.
Yeah unfortunately that's not how it works. Repaying hate with hate just makes them double down. They will say "we were right to hate these people, let's put the screws to them even more". If your goal is to get the madness to stop, making the perpetrators feel pain is not going to advance it.
I do not, because he isn't protecting anything. Nobody has gained here, there are only losses.
I'm not sure what all those stand for, but who on earth puts onions on a burger as standard? Onions are nasty fam.
Fine, I'll concede the point that a handful of specific individuals have gained. But literally everyone else gained nothing, and in fact is losing by this. So this is still by far a net loss even if a handful of people gained significantly. Your rebuttal "but some people have gained" makes it come off even worse if anything, because now it's hurting the vast majority just to benefit a token few.
There is absolutely nothing dignified about this. It's not "dying on your feet", it's getting down in the mud and shit to flail around with a knife before dying from an infection because you cut yourself.
No, it really does make everyone worse off. Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.
Trump is perpetuating the cycle of badness and I refuse to accept bad reasoning like "oh well they do it too, turnabout is fair play" trying to justify it. I'm sick and tired of being caught in the crossfire between these people.
No, of course not. But temperament and cultural values are not part of academic merit, and therefore have no place in a meritocracy for academia.
This is just sophistry. The criteria for merit in an academic institution does not include culture and the like. Meritocracy in college admissions can include academic merit besides SAT scores, but it cannot include the criteria you are asking for.
That works with bullies because it's a single person who you can hurt to get them to stop hurting you. In this case it's more like you're fighting a crowd of people, and to hurt them hurts yourself just as much. It's stupid to fight under those terms.
-
It's not, I demand the exact same thing of both sides. But I'm not willing for either side to wait until the other side starts, because then nothing will ever happen.
-
Even if it were, that would still be better than having all out breaking of norms on both sides. Better for you as well as for them, in fact. Because again, this shit hurts everyone.
-
Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.
A real meritocracy would have to weigh SAT scores by temperament and cultural values
That is by definition not a meritocracy.
I'm American, and I definitely would not say onions are standard on burgers. It varies widely. Some have em, some don't.
I disagree with your analysis. The two choices are, in my view:
-
Take the high road, and by doing so gain credibility with the left which can be used to cool tensions, or
-
Double down, expect the left to double down, and let it keep getting worse until both sides agree to stop. Which they may never, and it may not be in our lifetimes.
Option 1 is the clear superior choice in my view. Also note that in option 2, someone still needs to take the high road eventually. So long as people are thinking in terms of "fuck the other guy, it's his turn to get kicked now" (which is what many in this forum have explicitly argued for), the conflict in #2 will never actually end.
Ok, fine. But refraining from reprisals is still a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for peace.
I understand the frustration. I share it. But unfortunately if one responds in kind then we are doomed to a cycle of hatred and retaliation. Peace is only possible when one side is willing to stick to it even at the risk of being stabbed in the back.
I can agree that the continued fireworks past midnight does get mildly annoying, but it is absolutely nothing compared to the year-round barking these dog owners inflict.
This is a crazy take. Fireworks (the mortar kind, which is what people around here do despite them being illegal) are an order of magnitude louder than dogs. Even if your neighbor's dog is barking a lot, barking utterly pales in comparison to fireworks in terms of how disruptive it is due to the massive difference in volume. It's made even worse by the fact that people choose to set off fireworks. At least a dog is an independent creature you can't control, but the fireworks people are deliberately choosing to be assholes disrupting their neighbors. Here people were setting off fireworks until 2 am! Fucking 2 am! Not only that, but people here start setting off fireworks 3-4 weeks before July 4, and continue for 3-4 weeks after, so it's not like it is just one night of this nonsense.
I would've had some sympathy for your argument if you just claimed that the two were equivalently disruptive. But claiming that fireworks are "absolutely nothing" in comparison to dogs barking is not the remotest bit reasonable. And it's not like most people have dogs that bark all the time anyways - I have had one neighbor, in my 40 years on this earth, that had such a dog. And yeah it's annoying. Perhaps one might even say those people are irresponsible and shouldn't own a dog. But they are the minority. Are you really trying to argue that fireworks are just desserts when they punish not only the irresponsible, but also the responsible owners and those who don't even have dogs? Because that would be completely disproportionate.
The virtuous loser is not virtuous, he's a coward who is surrendering to entropy.
If you don't see the difference between principle and cowardice, we truly will never agree on this.
So what? This line of argument fails twice:
-
Trump isn't responsible for what they do, he's responsible for what he does. He deserves criticism for provoking others even if they would have acted the same anyway.
-
Even if you discount his moral responsibility to act right, he still shouldn't do it. This pardon still has screwed everyone over by releasing criminals and further weakening the (paper thin at this point) norms of our country. Even if it's guaranteed that the left would do the same next time they get power, we are still better off if he doesn't pull the same stunt. Fewer outrageous pardons is an unalloyed good, no matter what the left chooses to do when they have the reins.
No it's not. Both sides mashing the defect button just makes everyone worse off.
None of which changes the fact that I, as a person who lives here, has not experienced what OP is saying. Homeless people are around (and have been for the decade I've lived here), but the camps are not super common and get broken up by police from time to time. I've never seen a homeless person committing crimes. I've never had my car stolen, nor has anyone I know.
Stats are all well and good. I'm not even saying your stats are wrong. But the claim I was responding to was "we've all experienced this", and the answer is "no we haven't". Just because something is happening statistically does not mean it is actually affecting the experience of people.
People have already picked sides. The goal at this point is not "get people to pick my side", it's "get people who have already chosen the other side to stand down". And those people are going to double down, not stand down, if the right persists in this hypocrisy on cancel culture.
If the right continues to "take the high ground", there's no reason for the masses to ever change their behavior or beliefs.
On the contrary: if the right abuses the tactics the left does, there's no reason that the masses will ever change their behavior or beliefs. They will see "the right is a bunch of hypocrites" (and they will be correct to do so), and continue to fight to put the screws to their enemies. After all, they thought the right was evil before, the right confirmed it in their eyes, so why shouldn't they fight to put them out of existence?
That's why people keep saying to not escalate things into a cycle of hatred where each side stabs the other as soon as it gets ahold of a dagger. Taking the high road is not a sufficient condition for peace, but it is necessary. Taking the low road simply ensures the conflict will continue unabated.
I can't possibly answer that question. You might want to ask the woman herself. I just don't think one should accuse people of hypocrisy without evidence, even (as in this case) people I don't like.
- Prev
- Next
I would have him not engage in the same detestable behavior Biden did. I don't fucking care if it means that the Democrats get to perpetuate bad things and get one up on Republicans, that is still preferable to the current state of affairs. If I get screwed over by only one side hitting defect, I'm better off than the status quo where I get screwed over by both sides.
More options
Context Copy link