What I've learned with politics

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 17
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
There are 3 ideological ways of thinking in the US:

  1. The small party.  This party sticks up for the rights of small groups (small is a broad term).  They call these groups, "minorities", but the 1% are a minority; this group isn't too much of a fan of the 1% because yes, they are a minority, but they have a lot of power (aka, they're big).  Women aren't a minority, but they are smaller in power than men, so this group tends to back women.  Elementary School teachers tend to back the small party because they work with small and weak people.  A high school track coach that has their team win the most championships is expected to lean differently.
  2. The big party.  This party sticks up for big groups (whether it's whites, men, rich people, Christians).
  3. The balls and strikes party; that doesn't care if you're big or small, they will advocate for you by calling it like they see it.  They're political umpires, basically.
It would be great if everyone was a member of the Balls and strikes party; but it seems pretty much everyone would rather be with the small or big party.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
I aint gonna be part of any balls.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,843
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Thank you RemyBrown for figuring it all out and we can stop debating and join the balls and strikes party
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I aint gonna be part of any balls.
How about strikers club?
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 35
Posts: 1,447
3
3
9
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
3
9
-->
@RemyBrown
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. People see someone doing something bad (like singling out a minority or majority) and join the other party. They get caught up in their own echo chambers so much that they turn the other party into caricatures and single them out, but justify it because those are the people doing the bad things. Then it’s okay for them to do the bad things so they do them to the other party. Undecided people see this and join the other party, and the other party solidified their opinion of party 1 because they see party 1 doing the bad things, like scapegoating and dehumanizing beyond reason.
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
How about the umpire party?
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thank you RemyBrown for figuring it all out and we can stop debating and join the balls and strikes party
You would need proof that you aren't with the small or big team.  You can't have members of a team be the umpire.  That's a rigged game.

But you play for the big team; you can't really expect to change the minds of anyone on the small team, making debating pointless.  It's not in their brains; it's like trying to convince Jimmy Johnson to become a public school teacher; it's not his drip.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,870
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RemyBrown
It would be great if everyone was a member of the Balls and strikes party
Everyone is a member of the balls and strikes party in their own mind.

I'm not sure if this is where you were coming from, but when I read this it comes off as an argument made for the "enlightened centrist", which I find contemptable. All I see with those people is a need to feel above everyone else. They start with the presumption that democrats are biased towards the left and republicans are biased towards the right, so they're going to sit above it all in their unbiased middle and call out both parties evenly.

The problem here is that these people don't seem to believe in anything. Their core value seems to be criticizing both parties, so they are constantly equivocating. Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
They start with the presumption that democrats are biased towards the left and republicans are biased towards the right, so they're going to sit above it all in their unbiased middle and call out both parties evenly.

The problem here is that these people don't seem to believe in anything. Their core value seems to be criticizing both parties, so they are constantly equivocating. Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing.
That is why they elected Trump who is not neutral in any of his positions.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,411
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@RemyBrown
I am not for any of the parties. I have been on my own and always have been and always will be.  All the federal govt does is start wars, make shit cost more and make earning a living harder. The federal govt is totally useless to me. The leadership in federal govt just tells me what a useless POS they think I am and how I am a threat to it.   Local and state govts are all that matter to me.  
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@sadolite
I am not for any of the parties. I have been on my own and always have been and always will be.  All the federal govt does is start wars, make shit cost more and make earning a living harder. The federal govt is totally useless to me. The leadership in federal govt just tells me what a useless POS they think I am and how I am a threat to it.   Local and state govts are all that matter to me.  
You must come from Texas.
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
I'm not sure if this is where you were coming from, but when I read this it comes off as an argument made for the "enlightened centrist", which I find contemptable.
Would you rather I become a member of the far right?  No?  Alright; be happy I agree about half of the time with you then instead of 0%.  Optimism is dead.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,870
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RemyBrown
I don't care what you become, I'm criticizing the idea to which you didn't refute describes you.

An enlightened centrist is better than a MAGA republican, but still contemptable as far as I am concerned. Again, it's not about what side you're on on any issue or even broadly, it's about whether you actually believe anything at all or are just standing on the hill pretending to be better than everyone else cause you're above it all.
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
I'm criticizing the idea to which you didn't refute describes you.
If you think "enlightened centrism" is despicable, then I don't agree, but me refuting it is pointless because I know it won't change your mind.

Again, it's not about what side you're on on any issue or even broadly, it's about whether you actually believe anything at all or are just standing on the hill pretending to be better than everyone else cause you're above it all.
Do you want me to send a spreadsheet of everything I believe in as proof that I have beliefs?

An enlightened centrist is better than a MAGA republican, but still contemptable as far as I am concerned. 
If I said anything not left wing is contemptable to you, then would that be accurate?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,870
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RemyBrown
If you think "enlightened centrism" is despicable, then I don't agree, but me refuting it is pointless because I know it won't change your mind.
If your goal when making an argument is to change the mind of the person you're talking to you'd probably be better off watching a Netflix special or something. Very rarely does anyone change their mind based off a counter argument, especially on a site people visit for the purpose of debating their views.

If I said anything not left wing is contemptable to you, then would that be accurate?
No. I respect the views of plenty of people I disagree with, on this site Thett comes to mind. If you followed what I explained, I never attacked centrism. Being in the middle doesn't make you an "enlightened centrist". The term is used to point to someone who focuses more on being above both sides than holding any particular beliefs or holding any real values. Again, the core value for this kind of person seems to be to place themselves above anyone who strongly favors one side over the other. If that's you, then that is what I find contemptable.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
No. I respect the views of plenty of people I disagree with, on this site Thett comes to mind. If you followed what I explained, I never attacked centrism. Being in the middle doesn't make you an "enlightened centrist". The term is used to point to someone who focuses more on being above both sides than holding any particular beliefs or holding any real values. Again, the core value for this kind of person seems to be to place themselves above anyone who strongly favors one side over the other. If that's you, then that is what I find contemptable.
They are called fence sitters.
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
The term is used to point to someone who focuses more on being above both sides than holding any particular beliefs or holding any real values. Again, the core value for this kind of person seems to be to place themselves above anyone who strongly favors one side over the other. If that's you, then that is what I find contemptable.
It's not me though is the thing.

I believe:

  1. American expansionism (the US should annex Canada, Greenland, Gulf of America, Bahamas, Belize, Guyana)
  2. TWAW
  3. Abortion should be federally legal for the whole 9 months.
  4. Murderers and similarly bad people should be beheaded without painkillers.
  5. There should be a ban on welfare and everyone on welfare should get a job (and if that's a government job, then fine).
  6. Social libertarianism (very different from social leftism; I don't care if you own an AR 15, use the N word if you're white, say offensive speech).
  7. Medicare for all should be a state and local issue.
  8. Pro Israel (even with military funding that I would not give to Ukraine because they give America nuclear strike protection with Hetz and Ukraine doesn't do anything comparable).
I don't come off as hardcore one way or the other.  But what I think is lets say hypothetically Trump decides to verbally support a position in the Arminea-Azerbajain war; I would think about whether I agree with him or not, but I think most people who hate Trump right now will take the opposite stance as Trump on this issue and most of the MAGA people will agree with Trump on this issue (even without knowing the pros/cons to each side).  If he's pro Arminea because of reason A, then you would be anti Arminea; if he's anti Arminea because of reason B, then you would become pro Arminea.  

There is no correlation between being pro Roe and being pro Arminea (until Trump takes a stance on Arminea).  THEN there will be a correlation (+ or -).  It should stay at neutral even if Trump takes a stance on it.