This is essentially the profile of the group who were going to attack the UFC event at the White House. They realized that they'd been duped, and decided to take things into their own hands.
And when the critical factor for being able to choose immigration over death/incarceration is money... Well, a lot of us simply don't get a choice.
My engineer friend is halfway through the immigration process. Me? I have a solid 9 to 5 that I bust my ass at every day but I don't have enough money for gas to get to the border, much less to immigrate.
I'll never be an immigrant, and not by choice.
When the time comes, if I'm very VERY lucky, I might live long enough to become a refugee. That's my only alternative to your alternative.
The three paragraphs regarding the topic that I explicitly stated that I wasn't engaging with you about?
The focus on the addendum that you didn't have to include but did anyway?
You don't seem to understand that everything you say in an argument is part of the argument. You done fucked up by letting your emotions get the best of you, and if you think that doesn't impact your chances of successfully convincing another person about something, you're just fooling yourself. Humans are emotional creatures, and whether you're right is, at most, the same importance as maintaining the other person's willingness to accept that you're right. Yeah, that's fucked up, emotions should have nothing to do with whether something is correct or incorrect. If you're right, you're right... Right?
Case in point: you know I'm right, but you're pissed off at me and don't want to admit it (but maybe you will, now that I've called you out on it, just to spite me)
If this argument succeeds, I would love to see the same logic applied to the second amendment (specifically the word "arms") just for shits and giggles.
But don't get me wrong, I know that logical consistency doesn't apply to the second amendment. It would just be fun to see someone try.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius (misattributed)
A good person would reward good people for being good. If Jesus won't reward a good person for being good just because they haven't "accepted him into their heart" well... I said what I said.
You don't get to support marginalizing other groups in other states and then complain when your group gets marginalized in your state. They opened this particular Pandora's box and it's too late to close it.
The acronym was never about sexuality, it was about gender non-conformity. By the same notion, that's what people's attitudes are being measured about: specific forms and sub-groups of gender non-conformity.
Right, and therein lays the rub: it's open to interpretation, and things will get interpreted differently by different people in different places and times.
Most medieval Christians believed that transgender people (not how they would have been labeled at that time, but they frequently didn't have a specific word for such people, so we'll make do) were created by God as the gender they identify as BUT were changed by the devil to the opposite gender in the womb. Gender transition was therefore putting things back they way that God intended and was fighting against the devil.
Anti trans Christians today believe it's the other way around.
And this is why evidence based policy making is so important for a successful government.
The people responsible for the firing weren't punished at all. Florida tax payers were. In a functional democracy this would lead to the people responsible for the firing to be held accountable, but... well....
It's worth noting that "blue no matter who" is just a bandaid, just a drive to get fascists out of power long enough to enact voting reform. The two party system is an organic result of First Past The Post voting; we have to move to some form of Rank Choice if we're ever to see any progress. Thankfully voting regulations are on the local level, where change is still possible. This is one of the many reasons Trump is trying to federalize elections.
Until we get voting reform, there will only be Two Parties, and they will always drift to the right.
Ok, what I just read send to be a modest attempt to create understanding by somebody who doesn't understand. And honestly, that's... Well, not ideal, but understandable. Everyone wants to understand things, and it's normal to come to with explanations that make sense.
Certainly our society does an absolute shit job of teaching these concepts, and arguably they don't teach them at all.
Personally, I've done a lot of reading to better understand the question "what do left and right mean in context of political orientation" and I'm going to share what I put together. It's possible somebody will come along and correct me.
The Left/Right difference is regarding whether there's a belief that society has a natural order it adheres to (Right), or if society can choose how it organizes itself (Left).
On the Right you get disagreements about what the natural order is, but they all agree that there is a natural order and generally that if you try to go against the natural order then society wide disaster will result.
On the Left you get disagreements about what order society should choose to organize itself into, but they all agree that there's a choice to be made and generally that if you're not careful there are people who will exploit society to the detriment of everyone.
This distinction traces its origins to the French revolution when royalists (Right, believe the natural order includes God putting the king in charge) were confronted by the revolutionaries (Left, believe that society can choose a different way to order itself than letting God put somebody in charge).
It has nothing to do with work, at least not directly. Coincidentally, most Rightists believe that the natural order includes needing to work, and Leftists coincidentally believe that letting a person die due to not working is bad. But that's more to do with personal morals than Left/Right. It's totally possible to have a leftist say that a person who doesn't work deserves to die, because that's not what defines the person as a leftist; their believe about whether society can choose how it orders itself is what makes them a leftist.
It's worse than that. Any historian will tell you that the work of historians is basically gathering clues and hints to piece together a coherent story that fits all the data. Which is fine, except when you're using that story to interpret legal doctrine. The very foundation of originalist philosophy, that we should interpret law according to history, is flawed because history can never be perfectly known or understood. We might have extremely good data and knowledge, we might have a NEARLY perfectly accurate story of what happened. But "nearly" isn't enough, and it's that very flaw that fascists use to exploit originalist philosophy to push their own agenda.
Yeah well, it's not their job to keep fascists out if power. It's OUR job. Us, the voters.
Voting works. If it didn't, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop us from doing it. And once we have Rank Choice we'll be able to move beyond the "an actual fascist/not an actual fascist" dichotomy. But until then, for fucks sake, vote "not an actual fascist" even if you don't like the person you're voting for. I don't care how terrible they are, if they're not an actual fascist then you vote for them. THAT'S how you keep fascists out of power.
This is essentially the profile of the group who were going to attack the UFC event at the White House. They realized that they'd been duped, and decided to take things into their own hands.
And when the critical factor for being able to choose immigration over death/incarceration is money... Well, a lot of us simply don't get a choice.
My engineer friend is halfway through the immigration process. Me? I have a solid 9 to 5 that I bust my ass at every day but I don't have enough money for gas to get to the border, much less to immigrate.
I'll never be an immigrant, and not by choice.
When the time comes, if I'm very VERY lucky, I might live long enough to become a refugee. That's my only alternative to your alternative.
The three paragraphs regarding the topic that I explicitly stated that I wasn't engaging with you about?
The focus on the addendum that you didn't have to include but did anyway?
You don't seem to understand that everything you say in an argument is part of the argument. You done fucked up by letting your emotions get the best of you, and if you think that doesn't impact your chances of successfully convincing another person about something, you're just fooling yourself. Humans are emotional creatures, and whether you're right is, at most, the same importance as maintaining the other person's willingness to accept that you're right. Yeah, that's fucked up, emotions should have nothing to do with whether something is correct or incorrect. If you're right, you're right... Right?
Case in point: you know I'm right, but you're pissed off at me and don't want to admit it (but maybe you will, now that I've called you out on it, just to spite me)
Begging the question, asssumes the conclusion that the other person is intent on promoting tyranny.
Strawman, misrepresents the other person's argument.
Red herring, attempts to change the subject under debate from interpretation of the 2A to if the other person is supporting fascists.
And the whole paragraph is a kind of ad hominem/appeal to emotion.
Hey, I'm not here to say if you're right or wrong about your interpretation of the 2A. I'm just here to tell you you're being a fallacious asshole.
Good luck convincing anyone of anything 😏
If this argument succeeds, I would love to see the same logic applied to the second amendment (specifically the word "arms") just for shits and giggles.
But don't get me wrong, I know that logical consistency doesn't apply to the second amendment. It would just be fun to see someone try.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius (misattributed)
A good person would reward good people for being good. If Jesus won't reward a good person for being good just because they haven't "accepted him into their heart" well... I said what I said.
Just another "Conservatives FAFO"
You don't get to support marginalizing other groups in other states and then complain when your group gets marginalized in your state. They opened this particular Pandora's box and it's too late to close it.
The acronym was never about sexuality, it was about gender non-conformity. By the same notion, that's what people's attitudes are being measured about: specific forms and sub-groups of gender non-conformity.
Right, and therein lays the rub: it's open to interpretation, and things will get interpreted differently by different people in different places and times.
Most medieval Christians believed that transgender people (not how they would have been labeled at that time, but they frequently didn't have a specific word for such people, so we'll make do) were created by God as the gender they identify as BUT were changed by the devil to the opposite gender in the womb. Gender transition was therefore putting things back they way that God intended and was fighting against the devil.
Anti trans Christians today believe it's the other way around.
And this is why evidence based policy making is so important for a successful government.
Can't lose something you never had.
These people were always fascists, they just didn't know it or knew to hide it.
The heart attack thing is probably untrue, but it doesn't need to be true to justify ending three DST nonsense.
https://medschool.duke.edu/news/daylight-saving-time-may-not-trigger-heart-attacks-after-all-study-finds
The people responsible for the firing weren't punished at all. Florida tax payers were. In a functional democracy this would lead to the people responsible for the firing to be held accountable, but... well....
It's worth noting that "blue no matter who" is just a bandaid, just a drive to get fascists out of power long enough to enact voting reform. The two party system is an organic result of First Past The Post voting; we have to move to some form of Rank Choice if we're ever to see any progress. Thankfully voting regulations are on the local level, where change is still possible. This is one of the many reasons Trump is trying to federalize elections.
Until we get voting reform, there will only be Two Parties, and they will always drift to the right.
I love your optimism.
And, to be clear, we achieve that by changing local election laws to use some form of Rank Choice instead of First Past The Post.
The two party system is an organic result of FPTP voting. If we change to Rank Choice, the two party system will crumble.
"What? Really?? With Netflix and Amazon pulling shows left and right????"
Ohhhhh, that's ... Uh, hm. Somehow less interesting and more interesting at the same time.
Ok, what I just read send to be a modest attempt to create understanding by somebody who doesn't understand. And honestly, that's... Well, not ideal, but understandable. Everyone wants to understand things, and it's normal to come to with explanations that make sense.
Certainly our society does an absolute shit job of teaching these concepts, and arguably they don't teach them at all.
Personally, I've done a lot of reading to better understand the question "what do left and right mean in context of political orientation" and I'm going to share what I put together. It's possible somebody will come along and correct me.
The Left/Right difference is regarding whether there's a belief that society has a natural order it adheres to (Right), or if society can choose how it organizes itself (Left).
On the Right you get disagreements about what the natural order is, but they all agree that there is a natural order and generally that if you try to go against the natural order then society wide disaster will result.
On the Left you get disagreements about what order society should choose to organize itself into, but they all agree that there's a choice to be made and generally that if you're not careful there are people who will exploit society to the detriment of everyone.
This distinction traces its origins to the French revolution when royalists (Right, believe the natural order includes God putting the king in charge) were confronted by the revolutionaries (Left, believe that society can choose a different way to order itself than letting God put somebody in charge).
It has nothing to do with work, at least not directly. Coincidentally, most Rightists believe that the natural order includes needing to work, and Leftists coincidentally believe that letting a person die due to not working is bad. But that's more to do with personal morals than Left/Right. It's totally possible to have a leftist say that a person who doesn't work deserves to die, because that's not what defines the person as a leftist; their believe about whether society can choose how it orders itself is what makes them a leftist.
It's worse than that. Any historian will tell you that the work of historians is basically gathering clues and hints to piece together a coherent story that fits all the data. Which is fine, except when you're using that story to interpret legal doctrine. The very foundation of originalist philosophy, that we should interpret law according to history, is flawed because history can never be perfectly known or understood. We might have extremely good data and knowledge, we might have a NEARLY perfectly accurate story of what happened. But "nearly" isn't enough, and it's that very flaw that fascists use to exploit originalist philosophy to push their own agenda.
Exactly. Fascists very rarely operate in good faith.
Yeah well, it's not their job to keep fascists out if power. It's OUR job. Us, the voters.
Voting works. If it didn't, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop us from doing it. And once we have Rank Choice we'll be able to move beyond the "an actual fascist/not an actual fascist" dichotomy. But until then, for fucks sake, vote "not an actual fascist" even if you don't like the person you're voting for. I don't care how terrible they are, if they're not an actual fascist then you vote for them. THAT'S how you keep fascists out of power.