@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

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.

I do not, because he isn't protecting anything. Nobody has gained here, there are only losses.

  • -10

No it's not. Both sides mashing the defect button just makes everyone worse off.

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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.

If you truly believe that will happen, I can only say I don't think you've been paying enough attention to politics the past decade. Nobody has ever changed their behavior for the better when their opponents smash the "defect" button, it simply galvanizes them to do the same thing in return. The last 10-20 years of US politics has just been a cycle of parties playing dirty with each other every chance they can, and it has only spiraled into worse and worse offenses. There's zero reason to believe that this time it'll have a positive impact because it'll send a message about incentives.

So what? This line of argument fails twice:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.

Are you joking? They absolutely have not been that. The GOP has been fighting every bit as dirty as their opponents. To paraphrase the old quote about Christianity, acting right hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.

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.

I have to say I find it hard to understand why you care so much. Even if she does smell bad (which neither of us can know one way or the other, as we will never see her in person), what's it to you (as you will never experience the bad smell)? If her hygiene practices don't inflict any actual cost upon you, I don't see why it matters one way or the other to you.

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.

That is not what most people would call "invasion", no. It's bad behavior, but just because someone acts like a jerk in ways which involve people arriving in a country does not make it invasion.

Well said. At the end of the day, acting virtuously is good in and of itself. The fact that many people don't understand this any more is a key cause of decay in our society.

I couldn't begin to guess. I would certainly hope not, but given that people here are willing to make excuses for him it may be that most voters want him to.

A real meritocracy would have to weigh SAT scores by temperament and cultural values

That is by definition not a meritocracy.

Given that Trump single-handedly mitigated the vast majority of the border problem in about a month, we now have definitive proof that the entire border issue was a deliberate intentional undertaking by Joe Biden.

We actually don't. Even assuming your logic behind that (Biden could've done something but didn't) is true, that doesn't prove whether his lack of action was deliberate or the result of incompetence.

Perhaps, but that's not what was originally under discussion. The original statement was "Empathy requires shared reciprocity. Why should I care for people who hate me and want to see me destroyed?". This is at best indifference, and at worst outright hatred. In neither case is it a virtuous attempt to take harsh actions to achieve a better future, it's just giving in to base instincts.

You're not alone. I want both groups of rioters to get significant prison sentences (like 5 years or so) in order to send a message that such activity is not acceptable in our society. But unfortunately most people are all about punishing rioters right up until they agree with the rioters' politics.

This is quite stupid, if you could have a kid by getting kicked in the balls you'd do it more than once.

I agree it's a poor argument, but I can assure you that this is not true. I know exactly zero men who would choose to get kicked in the balls even once to have a child, let alone more than once.

Nor do you see me defending Biden's pardon of Fauci. I think it is equally ridiculous and damaging to society. Furthermore, who exactly would I be arguing against? When I saw that subthread everyone was in agreement that it was bad.

I have no idea who Milley is, so I can't offer an opinion there. But you're searching for an inconsistency which simply isn't there. Not commenting on something isn't some kind of tacit agreement with it.

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.

No, it doesn't become an invasion just because it has bad effects on us. Words mean things, and an invasion isn't "lots of people arrive here and it causes problems". There's more to it than that (intent is a big one, and imo unarmed civilians don't qualify as an invasion either).

Trying to redefine "invasion" in this way is no different than when leftists try to redefine "violence" to include things they don't like. It's not reasonable, in either direction, to redefine words just because you feel strongly that something is bad.

As far as I’m concerned the burden of proof is on the people saying it’s not happening.

That's not how burden of proof works, as it is impossible to prove something isn't happening.

You make a persuasive point that we should err on the side of protecting innocents. I myself am a strong believer in Blackstone's formulation. On the other hand, I don't think that it's accurate to say that what Trump has done here is motivated by that same desire. If it were, then he would've been more selective about who he pardoned. After all, this isn't an "all or nothing" where we can't do anything about the fact that the guilty (and there are guilty people here) will be set free.

No, in my view this is pure "stick it to them" trying to get back at his outgroup coupled with a healthy dose of not caring whether the presidential pardon power is being abused. And that is not acceptable. We all lose by such an action, and we lose quite a bit at that. So, at best, this is some benefit to those who are innocent coupled with serious damage to the social fabric of the United States. I'm not prepared to accept that trade so readily as you are.