Topic: Political dialectics on the Right and Left.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #118,228
Right-wing: Here's my opinion, and here's the justification for that opinion.
Left wing: Um, wow, you're problematic. Here's the correct opinion
Right-wing: Here's a problem with that stance, can you respond?
Left wing: *name calling*
Right wing: Do you have any questions about my position?
Left wing: *passive aggressive response*
Right wing: Here's a straightforward answer to that.
Left wing: 😏 um, no you.
Right wing: Your position has contradictions here and here.
Left wing: I'm offended, that means I win!
This is how every discussion goes, no matter the issue. The left insists it's not their job to educate you and you need to agree with them because just trust them. They can't elaborate on anything or reconcile any contradictions. The right isn't always correct, but in general they do try to have a good faith conversation and respond to straightforward questions.
Deflection, emotional outburst, and finding any excuse to end the discussion might be necessary if you take a stance that isn't backed up by the facts, and would not fare well in a calm conversation about the topic.
Left wing: Um, wow, you're problematic. Here's the correct opinion
Right-wing: Here's a problem with that stance, can you respond?
Left wing: *name calling*
Right wing: Do you have any questions about my position?
Left wing: *passive aggressive response*
Right wing: Here's a straightforward answer to that.
Left wing: 😏 um, no you.
Right wing: Your position has contradictions here and here.
Left wing: I'm offended, that means I win!
This is how every discussion goes, no matter the issue. The left insists it's not their job to educate you and you need to agree with them because just trust them. They can't elaborate on anything or reconcile any contradictions. The right isn't always correct, but in general they do try to have a good faith conversation and respond to straightforward questions.
Deflection, emotional outburst, and finding any excuse to end the discussion might be necessary if you take a stance that isn't backed up by the facts, and would not fare well in a calm conversation about the topic.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #1,299,693
Nha I think you read too much into what ultimately is your own observations, forgetting that they are never as neutral as they may appear.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,694
This reminds me of when people say they aren't emotional, conveniently forgetting that anger is an emotion
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 45 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,695
@1,299,693 (B)
It happens all the time, the right is not known for statements like "don't platform the opposition" or "it's not my job to educate you".
You can find some examples of it being reversed, but 9 times out of 10 it's the left who talks like this.
It happens all the time, the right is not known for statements like "don't platform the opposition" or "it's not my job to educate you".
You can find some examples of it being reversed, but 9 times out of 10 it's the left who talks like this.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,715
@1,299,694 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Usually it's the left using anger to deflect from calm conversation, and as an excuse to bow out of the conversation.
The right gives their opinion in a debate, and the left gets mad instead of forming an actual counter-argument. In person it's the left glaring and completely stops speaking, while the right who also has strong feeling manages to keep their tone and expressions mellow while trying to explain why they disagree.
Usually it's the left using anger to deflect from calm conversation, and as an excuse to bow out of the conversation.
The right gives their opinion in a debate, and the left gets mad instead of forming an actual counter-argument. In person it's the left glaring and completely stops speaking, while the right who also has strong feeling manages to keep their tone and expressions mellow while trying to explain why they disagree.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,718
@previous (A)
The right uses religion to form opinions and calls it common sense
They use their personal disgust to form opinions and calls them morals
They call a relatively short period of American history, traditional values. Even though those values don't show up in the Bible
They call Trump a godly man, when he dies what he does
The right uses religion to form opinions and calls it common sense
They use their personal disgust to form opinions and calls them morals
They call a relatively short period of American history, traditional values. Even though those values don't show up in the Bible
They call Trump a godly man, when he dies what he does
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,732
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> The right uses religion to form opinions and calls it common sense
Keeping traditions alive and retelling old myths isn't the same thing as believing it all literally. Religious people will wave off a discussion by saying it's just faith. Libs will call it science, and try to censor discussions any way they can. Both are dogmatic, but one is self-aware.
Libs can't claim dialectics when they are against free speech, and want to fire any professor who strays from the party line.
> They use their personal disgust to form opinions and calls them morals
Which party uses "gross" as a way of announcing their opposition to a stance, and dismissing any further conversation?
> They call a relatively short period of American history, traditional values. Even though those values don't show up in the Bible
Every culture has had their culture change and evolve. The right doesn't pretend the bible is science, but the left priesthood claims their beliefs are.
> They call Trump a godly man, when he dies what he does
The Republicans are as prone to personality cults as the Democrats.
> The right uses religion to form opinions and calls it common sense
Keeping traditions alive and retelling old myths isn't the same thing as believing it all literally. Religious people will wave off a discussion by saying it's just faith. Libs will call it science, and try to censor discussions any way they can. Both are dogmatic, but one is self-aware.
Libs can't claim dialectics when they are against free speech, and want to fire any professor who strays from the party line.
> They use their personal disgust to form opinions and calls them morals
Which party uses "gross" as a way of announcing their opposition to a stance, and dismissing any further conversation?
> They call a relatively short period of American history, traditional values. Even though those values don't show up in the Bible
Every culture has had their culture change and evolve. The right doesn't pretend the bible is science, but the left priesthood claims their beliefs are.
> They call Trump a godly man, when he dies what he does
The Republicans are as prone to personality cults as the Democrats.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,750
@previous (A)
I don't believe the Right are self aware and many on the Right do believe that the Bible is science
I don't believe the Right are self aware and many on the Right do believe that the Bible is science
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 46 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,753
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> ...many on the Right do believe that the Bible is science
I was one of those young earth guys. That was a tough worldview to deprogram. I like to think that science saved me, I'm glad I didn't die in that mindset.
> ...many on the Right do believe that the Bible is science
I was one of those young earth guys. That was a tough worldview to deprogram. I like to think that science saved me, I'm glad I didn't die in that mindset.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,754
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 11 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,811
@OP
> Right-wing: Here's my opinion, and here's the justification for that opinion.
>
> Left wing: Um, wow, you're problematic. Here's the correct opinion
>
> Right-wing: Here's a problem with that stance, can you respond?
>
> Left wing: *name calling*
>
> Right wing: Do you have any questions about my position?
>
> Left wing: *passive aggressive response*
>
> Right wing: Here's a straightforward answer to that.
>
> Left wing: 😏 um, no you.
>
> Right wing: Your position has contradictions here and here.
>
> Left wing: I'm offended, that means I win!
>
> This is how every discussion goes, no matter the issue. The left insists it's not their job to educate you and you need to agree with them because just trust them. They can't elaborate on anything or reconcile any contradictions. The right isn't always correct, but in general they do try to have a good faith conversation and responto straightforward questions.
>
> Deflection, emotional outburst, and finding any excuse to end the discussion might be necessary if you take a stance that isn't backed up by the facts, and would not fare well in a calm conversation about the topic.
Mm yes it’s the radical left that is doing all the crying despite the fact that the only play republicans have is to cry and whine about how they didn’t get their way and then immediately post a 5 paragraph essay bitching about how nobody likes them
> Right-wing: Here's my opinion, and here's the justification for that opinion.
>
> Left wing: Um, wow, you're problematic. Here's the correct opinion
>
> Right-wing: Here's a problem with that stance, can you respond?
>
> Left wing: *name calling*
>
> Right wing: Do you have any questions about my position?
>
> Left wing: *passive aggressive response*
>
> Right wing: Here's a straightforward answer to that.
>
> Left wing: 😏 um, no you.
>
> Right wing: Your position has contradictions here and here.
>
> Left wing: I'm offended, that means I win!
>
> This is how every discussion goes, no matter the issue. The left insists it's not their job to educate you and you need to agree with them because just trust them. They can't elaborate on anything or reconcile any contradictions. The right isn't always correct, but in general they do try to have a good faith conversation and responto straightforward questions.
>
> Deflection, emotional outburst, and finding any excuse to end the discussion might be necessary if you take a stance that isn't backed up by the facts, and would not fare well in a calm conversation about the topic.
Mm yes it’s the radical left that is doing all the crying despite the fact that the only play republicans have is to cry and whine about how they didn’t get their way and then immediately post a 5 paragraph essay bitching about how nobody likes them
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,812
@OP
This is very accurate.
This is very accurate.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 58 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,299,815
@1,299,811 (E)
1. Never said they were crying, did say they do everything to avoid simple straightforward conversations in favor of immature tactics.
2. Never said anything about the right being liked or disliked, did say the right can have a straightforward conversation.
Not a complex message and you still couldn't understand it.
1. Never said they were crying, did say they do everything to avoid simple straightforward conversations in favor of immature tactics.
2. Never said anything about the right being liked or disliked, did say the right can have a straightforward conversation.
Not a complex message and you still couldn't understand it.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,002
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,099
@1,299,718 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> The right uses religion to form opinions and calls it common sense
as opposed to the left that forms its opinions around their mental issues and calls it common sense.
> They use their personal disgust to form opinions and calls them morals
The left uses their indignation that they cannot enslave the people they dont like to form opinions and call them morals
> They call a relatively short period of American history, traditional values.
The left calls the even shorter period of the weimar republic, enlightened thinking...
> Even though those values don't show up in the Bible
> They call Trump a godly man, when he dies what he does
... and straight up make up shit to cover their own ignorance
> The right uses religion to form opinions and calls it common sense
as opposed to the left that forms its opinions around their mental issues and calls it common sense.
> They use their personal disgust to form opinions and calls them morals
The left uses their indignation that they cannot enslave the people they dont like to form opinions and call them morals
> They call a relatively short period of American history, traditional values.
The left calls the even shorter period of the weimar republic, enlightened thinking...
> Even though those values don't show up in the Bible
> They call Trump a godly man, when he dies what he does
... and straight up make up shit to cover their own ignorance
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,109
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,138
@1,299,715 (A)
"The right just gives their opinion."
The right's opinion: Hello, gay person. I think you should be publicly executed.
"The right just gives their opinion."
The right's opinion: Hello, gay person. I think you should be publicly executed.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,141
@previous (I)
Also: note how many gay-bashing Republican politicians are caught in homosexual trysts with male prostitutes roughly half their age.
By contrast: Democrats, being out in the open, don't need to go slinking around glory holes, truck stops and airport bathrooms.
Also: note how many gay-bashing Republican politicians are caught in homosexual trysts with male prostitutes roughly half their age.
By contrast: Democrats, being out in the open, don't need to go slinking around glory holes, truck stops and airport bathrooms.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,168
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 47 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,171
@1,300,138 (I)
This isn't happening. 10 years ago the right was against the government supporting gay marriage, because the institution was created to keep society balanced by encouraging monogamy. That battle has been lost, but neither now nor then was the right advocating for executions.
This isn't happening. 10 years ago the right was against the government supporting gay marriage, because the institution was created to keep society balanced by encouraging monogamy. That battle has been lost, but neither now nor then was the right advocating for executions.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,185
@previous (A)
And 6 years before that, Obama and the left opposed gay marriage, because at the time that was the majority opinion.
What political parties support or don't support has nothing to do with the desire to keep society balanced and other similarly flavoured bullshit, it's all to do with whatever they perceive will score them more votes than the opposition.
And 6 years before that, Obama and the left opposed gay marriage, because at the time that was the majority opinion.
What political parties support or don't support has nothing to do with the desire to keep society balanced and other similarly flavoured bullshit, it's all to do with whatever they perceive will score them more votes than the opposition.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,216
@previous (F)
The post I replied to was making the delusional claim the the right wing is trying to kill off gay people.
Everything the left does comes down to lying, and refusing to back up their claims with any kind of proof. No one is actually oppressing the left, so boogeymen are made up to indoctrinate more into the the cult.
The post I replied to was making the delusional claim the the right wing is trying to kill off gay people.
Everything the left does comes down to lying, and refusing to back up their claims with any kind of proof. No one is actually oppressing the left, so boogeymen are made up to indoctrinate more into the the cult.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 45 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,222
@1,300,171 (A)
A bunch of right wing Christians nationalists DO want to execute gay people because the Bible says so.
A bunch of right wing Christians nationalists DO want to execute gay people because the Bible says so.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,279
@1,300,109 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
its very odd that you havent sold yourself to an african warlord to atone for your white priviledge.
its very odd that you havent sold yourself to an african warlord to atone for your white priviledge.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,282
Dachan-da replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,284
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,288
@1,300,222 (I)
There's some christian nationalists on the right, but they don't want to kill gay people, at most they want to have penalties for sodomy and most of them just want the government to stop recognizing gay marriage without any actual penalties for being gay.
Most of the right has a libertarian view, where they disapprove, but don't really care.
If you want to find groups that actually support the death penalty for homosexuality, that would be in Islam, and they are being promoted by the left, not the right.
There's some christian nationalists on the right, but they don't want to kill gay people, at most they want to have penalties for sodomy and most of them just want the government to stop recognizing gay marriage without any actual penalties for being gay.
Most of the right has a libertarian view, where they disapprove, but don't really care.
If you want to find groups that actually support the death penalty for homosexuality, that would be in Islam, and they are being promoted by the left, not the right.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 22 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,289
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 30 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,290
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,292
@1,300,289 (I)
It took 22 seconds to read my post and write a reply, but in 10 minutes you can't name a single law?
This is exactly what I mean, the left loves to make shit up, throw it out, and then immediately drop the subject when they can't answer a simple question.
It took 22 seconds to read my post and write a reply, but in 10 minutes you can't name a single law?
This is exactly what I mean, the left loves to make shit up, throw it out, and then immediately drop the subject when they can't answer a simple question.
Erik !saAqdaazn2 joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,295
Wow, that's almost an exact copy of conversations between me and fake anon between 2014 and 2020
Jami !!1fFjfSYjI joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 11 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,300,348
What has this got to do with diabetes though?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 week later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,231
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,298
Its crazy cause of I had made this thread, it would have been reversed, weird how perspective reverses the op
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,299
@1,300,288 (A)
> Most of the right has a libertarian view, where they disapprove, but don't really care.
If that's true, wed actually have a robust libertarian party not one that boos the only libertarian candidate willing to stay there should be some knowledge test associated with driving a car
> Most of the right has a libertarian view, where they disapprove, but don't really care.
If that's true, wed actually have a robust libertarian party not one that boos the only libertarian candidate willing to stay there should be some knowledge test associated with driving a car
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,349
@previous (O)
Most libertarians aren't in the Libertarian Party because it has no chance of winning.
Most libertarians aren't in the Libertarian Party because it has no chance of winning.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 year ago, 29 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,354
@1,302,298 (N)
Bullshit, it's not the left that's fighting for free speech and it's not the right using excuses to shut down discussions.
Bullshit, it's not the left that's fighting for free speech and it's not the right using excuses to shut down discussions.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,392
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,393
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The right is not trying to ban books, that's a lie the left made up.
There are people on the right who don't want to spend public money on books they see as negative influences for children in schools, but that's not the same at all to what you're claiming.
My city doesn't use taxpayer money to buy copies of far-right books for children, yet no one would claim that's "book banning" because it's clearly not.
The right is not trying to ban books, that's a lie the left made up.
There are people on the right who don't want to spend public money on books they see as negative influences for children in schools, but that's not the same at all to what you're claiming.
My city doesn't use taxpayer money to buy copies of far-right books for children, yet no one would claim that's "book banning" because it's clearly not.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,396
@previous (A)
I think you should research how they're currently treating libraries and books on schools
I think you should research how they're currently treating libraries and books on schools
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,407
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I just addressed that, and you haven't responded to my point. Refusing to buy a book with public funds, and deciding children shouldn't be exposed to certain material is wholly different than actually banning a book from being sold.
Any parent in this situation could buy the book themselves and read it to their kid because it was never banned.
I just addressed that, and you haven't responded to my point. Refusing to buy a book with public funds, and deciding children shouldn't be exposed to certain material is wholly different than actually banning a book from being sold.
Any parent in this situation could buy the book themselves and read it to their kid because it was never banned.