Divisiveness is now...good?

[Letssnuggle]

If I felt that divisiveness was too difficult a concept for people, then I would not have written the OP like I did. I take it for granted that there is division, and further I take it for granted that others recognize that there is division. Therefore, your response is not logical.

I chose the nomination of Garland meaning Garland. It was a clear signal to the center- and this is the important part- for a pick that would overturn the balance of the court. That is a fundamentally different SC pick from Sotomayor replacing another liberal, and Kagan replacing a left leaner. When the balance of the court was at stake, he picked a moderate.

No he desperately attempted to shift the balance of the court left because that’s all he politically could do at that point. Take your revisionist history elsewhere.

And if you’re going to make wild-ass claims about Trump supporters at least be able to name them.

 

[Fawlty]

No he desperately attempted to shift the balance of the court left because that’s all he politically could do at that point. Take your revisionist history elsewhere.

And if you’re going to make wild-ass claims about Trump supporters at least be able to name them.

Souter famously sided with the liberal side of the court despite being a Republican appointee.

Stevens was a left-leaning Justice when he retired.

It sounds like it's you, and not me who is trying to rewrite history.

 

[Apollo1029]

Trump is easily the most divisive President of all of our lifetimes. There is no close second, and Obama was not divisive at all. He was just black, and a lot of Americans couldn't, and still can't, handle it.

Obama who fueled identity politics didn't do anything to divide us. Only after two terms in office did he try to throw some water on fire he helped fuel. You know once he became irrelevant.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You are quite mistaken. I said that if one is against PC speech then one should not try and restrict the speech of others.

The example Kinda presented was that people shouldn't be calling others nazis or that they should argue their points without alleging racism. That is a restriction on the speech of others.

The second example was about lobbying someone's boss. An obvious component of speech is that you can direct it towards whomever you wish. Any restrictions on who someone can speak to is equivalent to a restriction on their speech itself.

You can't say "PC speech is bad. People should say what they think without modifying it for sensitive ears. However, you aren't allowed to say specific things to specific people." That contradiction should be obvious once you start to think about it.

But Pan, saying someone shouldn't do something isn't the same thing as restricting them from doing it. You keep conflating appeals for one to modify their speech, on the basis that their speech is false and bordering on libel, with actually forcing them to do it under threat of losing their jobs, being physically assaulted, criminally prosecuted, or just flat out silenced.

The right doesn't say the left shouldn't be able to call them nazi's. They don't go to people's jobs and try to get them fired. They don't assault and harass them. They just argue that its a) false and b) a source of divisiveness and resentment. That's completely consistent with the concept of free speech. What the PC crowd does however is not.

 

[Losfer Words]

I've literally had right wingers come to my work and try to get people fired. No side of the isle is safe from crazy assholes.

 

[all caps]

We've turned into a nation of dicks who are proud to be dicks because their leader is a dick.

Slightly disagree*

I think weve secretly been a nation of dicks. Talking shit and trashing each other under our breath, or behind our keyboards. Weve not been allowed to just tell each other the honest truth, because sometimes the truth hurts.

I think were seeing the backlash of that, and people are starting to feel more comfortable being honest. I believe the divisiveness will level out, if we play it smart (and dont do anything we cant take back)

I think we will be better for it in the long run, if we just speak and look for the truth in everything. Just gotta stop the name calling and personal attacks.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Slightly disagree*

I think weve secretly been a nation of dicks. Talking shit and trashing each other under our breath, or behind our keyboards. Weve not been allowed to just tell each other the honest truth, because sometimes the truth hurts.

I think were seeing the backlash of that, and people are starting to feel more comfortable being honest. I believe the divisiveness will level out, if we play it smart (and dont do anything we cant take back)

I think we will be better for it in the long run, if we just speak and look for the truth in everything. Just gotta stop the name calling and personal attacks.

I don't know bruh. There is some serious, civil war level division going on right now. Today's generation may never fully reconcile. I'm not sure if this generation of conservatives are ever going to get over this coup attempt by the left not to mention the years of painting them as deplorable. And to the left they can never reconcile with a nazi. We may just have to hope our kids can get along lol.

 

[Fawlty]

I was hoping for a couple novel takes on this. @OeuvrePressure seems to think simple follower-type behavior accounts for most of it. That's interesting.

I wonder what effect the internet has had on it. Baseless speculation, but it could be that the nature of social media turns out to be hyper-divisive and could explain most of our political climate all by itself, and that without it we would be in a more normal place.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I was hoping for a couple novel takes on this. @OeuvrePressure seems to think simple follower-type behavior accounts for most of it. That's interesting.

I wonder what effect the internet has had on it. Baseless speculation, but it could be that the nature of social media turns out to be hyper-divisive and could explain most of our political climate all by itself, and that without it we would be in a more normal place.

The problem with your thread Fawlty is you are trying to force us to accept of premise many of us disagree with. And then when we try to challenge the premise of your thread you start making demands and reporting people. Of course that's not going to produce a good thread.

 

[all caps]

I don't know bruh. There is some serious, civil war level division going on right now. Today's generation may never fully reconcile. I'm not sure if this generation of conservatives are ever going to get over this coup attempt by the left not to mention the years of painting them as deplorable. And to the left they can never reconcile with a nazi. We may just have to hope our kids can get along lol.

It's up to us individually IMO. The divisive shit is going to be pushed no matter what. We have to be smarter than to fall for it.

But you're right, that may be an impossible task.

 

[Fawlty]

The problem with your thread Fawlty is you are trying to force us to accept of premise many of us disagree with. And then when we try to challenge the premise of your thread you start making demands and reporting people. Of course that's not going to produce a good thread.

I've reported trolling/attack/derailing posts because I'm taking responsibility for my thread, and it's working well. I'll continue doing it going forward. Others might want to do the same with theirs.

I'll lay out my argument simply and logically and you tell me where the fawlt is.


The Obama administration presided over division and it was bad.

The Trump administration encourages division and many who complained of Obama's divisiveness do not think the Trump divisiveness is bad.

Conclusion:
These beliefs are irreconcilable with the premise that divisiveness is bad.

 

[My Spot]

I've reported trolling/attack/derailing posts because I'm taking responsibility for my thread, and it's working well. I'll continue doing it going forward. Others might want to do the same with theirs.

I'll lay out my argument simply and logically and you tell me where the fawlt is.


The Obama administration presided over division and it was bad.

The Trump administration encourages division and many who complained of Obama's divisiveness do not think the Trump divisiveness is bad.

Conclusion:
These beliefs are irreconcilable with the premise that divisiveness is bad.

Welcome to politics.

 

[TheComebackKid]

The Obama administration presided over division and it was bad.

The Trump administration encourages division and many who complained of Obama's divisiveness do not think the Trump divisiveness is bad.

Conclusion:
These beliefs are irreconcilable with the premise that divisiveness is bad.

The Trump administration doesn't encourage division but rather confronted with it by you guys.

 

[Trotsky]

Lefties have been slandering everyone that disagrees with them as a racist for over a decade and now are upset by divisiveness.

Remember when the lefties said that proffering a market-based resolution to providing healthcare to the working class was communist government tyranny, would lead to government "death panels," and that the president pushing the plan was a Muslim Atheist Communist Kenyan?

 

[Fawlty]

The Trump administration doesn't encourage division but rather confronted with it by you guys.

The Trump administration in fact encourages division. It calls our press the enemy of the people, it is hostile to many of our allies, Trump has personally called for violence against dissidents in his rallies and the jailing of his political opponent, he claims a governmental conspiracy against him, on and on. Extremely divisive.

 

[tehJameson]

Nothing is more laughable than trump tards pointing fingers and calling other people divisive lol.

 

[Losfer Words]

Yeah you can't argue that Trump and his admin are not encouraging divisiveness.

 

[Losfer Words]

Well actually anyone CAN argue that but its a pretty tough sell.

 

[Fawlty]

Nothing is more laughable than trump tards pointing fingers and calling other people divisive lol.

But for the sake of the argument, it should be conceded that regardless of the cause of division, it is true that America was divided after Obama's presidency. I disagree with the reasons/motivations for the division offered by the right (it was self-inflicted), but the premise is that division has shifted from something that was bad to something that is now good, and this shift is not defensible except as a form of completely amoral political warfare.

 

[My Spot]

But for the sake of the argument, it should be conceded that regardless of the cause of division, it is true that America was divided after Obama's presidency. I disagree with the reasons/motivations for the division offered by the right (it was self-inflicted), but the premise is that division has shifted from something that was bad to something that is now good, and this shift is not defensible except as a form of completely amoral political warfare.

It was divided before. You just weren't bothered by people on your side who referred to Bush as Hitler and still to this day think he "stole" the 2000 election.