What happens to the Republican Party now? (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[MT15]

For someone that is on the far left a moderate looks like a right winger. I do not blame you. If anything I am to the left of the midline.

Oops, I almost forgot. Do you have an argument?

If you think I am “far left”, lol. Well, this just shows how uninformed your opinions really are.

 

[Paul]

If you think I am “far left”, lol. Well, this just shows how uninformed your opinions really are.

My bad. I made that opinion because you thought a moderate was right wing.

 

[MT15]

Here’s a really good “mea culpa” from a member of the press who “gets it”. The old way of covering the political parties is how we have ended up with one party which has been taken over by radicals seemingly without much coverage in the press. It explains exactly why “both sides” right now is a disservice to our country and aid and comfort to the radicals in the Republican Party.

 

[Paul]

And yet, you have chided people on here repeatedly for expressing an opinion that you are offended by. And told them they need to change their opinion. Do they not have the right to express their opinion that you are using racist analogies, and echoing white supremacist talking points?

If someone thinks I am white supremacist then I believe they are wrong. First of all I am not white and I do not believe that white people are supreme. Saying the latter does not mean I am trying to stifle the conversation. Furthermore calling someone a racist is an ad hominem and I would never personally insult any poster here. I realize they may feel insulted bu hearing a different point of view, but the correct thing to do is to debate the point rather than to immediately use the R word.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of you taking offense to a “word” that others are using to describe you and trying to convince them they shouldn’t use that “word” because it stifles discussion? You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

Ad hominem is not an argument and I will point that out every time.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

I believe you were not called a racist, but you were told your analogy was racist in tone. Can you understand the difference?

BTW, you have personally insulted me before. You do it with your arrogance and condescending tone. I have called you out and sometimes you have apologized. That’s part of having a conversation. But if you seek to abolish the use of a word that offends you, you are trying to stifle the conversation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If someone thinks I am white supremacist then I believe they are wrong. First of all I am not white and I do not believe that white people are supreme. Saying the latter does not mean I am trying to stifle the conversation. Furthermore calling someone a racist is an ad hominem and I would never personally insult any poster here. I realize they may feel insulted bu hearing a different point of view, but the correct thing to do is to debate the point rather than to immediately use the R word.

Ad hominem is not an argument and I will point that out every time.

An ad hominem attack ignores the argument. At no point, to my recollection, has that happened. Your arguments and statements have been called out, and when you double down on them, they are used to generate opinions about you.

If you don't like those opinions or think they are incorrect, try doing something to change them. The burden falls on you.

 

[Paul]

I believe you were not called a racist, but you were told your analogy was racist in tone. Can you understand the difference?

BTW, you have personally insulted me before. You do it with your arrogance and condescending tone. I have called you out and sometimes you have apologized. That’s part of having a conversation. But if you seek to abolish the use of a word that offends you, you are trying to stifle the conversation.

OK, you felt I was arrogant stating a point. My bad, I sometimes forget to be more polite or careful with my words. It may also be cultural, I find that English speakers tend to be less direct.

Saying that a nannie state is a bit like animals in the zoo is not racist. BTW, I told the poster in question that Scandinavians actually favor the nannie state.

As for the R word. It is not offensive when used correctly. If the R word is used all the time it loses its true meaning. It also reflects a hypersensitivity that may be based on erroneous perception of reality.

 

[Paul]

An ad hominem attack ignores the argument. At no point, to my recollection, has that happened. Your arguments and statements have been called out, and when you double down on them, they are used to generate opinions about you.

If you don't like those opinions or think they are incorrect, try doing something to change them. The burden falls on you.

Speech regulation is 1984 once again.

When exchanging ideas there is always the possibility i may say something that offends you. And you may say something that offends me. If we try to avoid any offense then we are just having a very superficial conversation about nothing.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Speech regulation is 1984 once again.

When exchanging ideas there is always the possibility i may say something that offends you. And you may say something that offends me. If we try to avoid any offense then we are just having a very superficial conversation about nothing.

I'm not regulating your speech. Getting called out for saying something stupid isn't regulation. It's a consequence.

I've had many deep exchanges of ideas without offending or being offended. If your deep exchanges of ideas routinely offend, what is more likely: the people you talk to are all easily offended or you hold some offensive ideas?

 

[samiam5211]

Speech regulation is 1984 once again.

When exchanging ideas there is always the possibility i may say something that offends you. And you may say something that offends me. If we try to avoid any offense then we are just having a very superficial conversation about nothing.

Why do you assume that people are offended when they point out that something you said is racist?

I am not offended by white nationalist talking points. The only person who has stated offense in this thread is you. Which is weird, because i don't think you have been called a racist very many times if at all. We just point out that many of the things you bring up are talking points that have been used in the past by people pushing white nationalism.

I can separate you from your words. Maybe you don't realize you are parroting white nationalism, in that case, we are trying to help you avoid being accused of being a racist. Then you continue to parrot white nationalist talking points, and whine about people using a bad word against you, when they are just describing the words you are using.

 

[RobF]

I'm not regulating your speech. Getting called out for saying something stupid isn't regulation. It's a consequence.

Yes. It's a classic - and typically alt-right, rather than moderate - argument, but it's not for freedom of speech, it's for freedom from consequence.

It usually goes like this: They express something racist, bigoted, or foolish - like, just for example, using 'poor', 'living in dysfunctional homes', and 'parents who don't care about their education' as euphemisms for 'African American', and then saying explicitly that African American boys should be taken away and tutored to be 'polite, educated, gentlemen' - and then when that's described, accurately, as racist and bigoted, they try to argue that the response is suppressing their speech.

Which it isn't, of course. The response is also speech. So even allowing for them talking about the general concept of freedom of speech, rather than the specific First Amendment right, the concept would apply both to the original bigotry, and to the rational response.

What they want is the right to say whatever racist, bigoted, foolish, nonsense they like, without being called on it, without consequence, and they want to be able to do it repeatedly and for it to be treated as something other than the bigoted racism it is.

And the answer to that is no.

 

[brandon]

Which is weird, because i don't think you have been called a racist very many times if at all.

Not in this forum.

 

[MT15]

I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

Saying that a nannie state is a bit like animals in the zoo is not racist. BTW, I told the poster in question that Scandinavians actually favor the nannie state.

You didn’t say the nanny state, we were talking about people using benefits from the government and you compared them to zoo animals. That’s what was said. Scandinavians weren‘t mentioned until you were defending yourself.

I don’t believe you intended it in a racist way. But it’s not out of left field if people interpret it in that manner. Sometimes it’s just best to say “my bad, I didn’t mean it the way it sounded”.

It doesn’t help your cause, though, that actual racists have a long history of referring to certain sets of people as animals.

 

[samiam5211]

Maybe Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin should team up and bring back the Democratic-Republican party.

 

[MT15]

 

[Paul]

Why do you assume that people are offended when they point out that something you said is racist?

I am not offended by white nationalist talking points. The only person who has stated offense in this thread is you. Which is weird, because i don't think you have been called a racist very many times if at all. We just point out that many of the things you bring up are talking points that have been used in the past by people pushing white nationalism.

I can separate you from your words. Maybe you don't realize you are parroting white nationalism, in that case, we are trying to help you avoid being accused of being a racist. Then you continue to parrot white nationalist talking points, and whine about people using a bad word against you, when they are just describing the words you are using.

You are doing it again. I see a tendency among many to regulate and control speech.

You are stating that the collective culture of this forum thinks that some points I have made are racist. If I lived in a neighborhood like this forum I would have to learn to bite my tongue and not express my opinion. That is how it works, I understand your perspective. However, you guys do this at your own peril. Here are a few regrettable examples:

1. In the 14th century John Wycliffe was heavily censored by the Catholic Church for suggesting the Bible could be translated to English.

2. IN 1811 Percy Shelly was banned from Oxford university because he wrote an essay entitled "The Necessity of Atheism" .

3. A hundred years ago anyone would be scorned and censored by suggesting men could have sex with other men and women with women. The Chameleon, a magazine in 1894 managed to only publish one issue because they wrote about homosexuality.

This practice of censoring ideas is not new Sam!

 

[Paul]

You didn’t say the nanny state, we were talking about people using benefits from the government and you compared them to zoo animals. That’s what was said. Scandinavians weren‘t mentioned until you were defending yourself.

I don’t believe you intended it in a racist way. But it’s not out of left field if people interpret it in that manner. Sometimes it’s just best to say “my bad, I didn’t mean it the way it sounded”.

It doesn’t help your cause, though, that actual racists have a long history of referring to certain sets of people as animals.

MT, I believe you also have your racism detector on high. This causes others to walk on eggshells.