I know that I've actually convinced a few people to not vote for Jill Stein who otherwise would have, and also some people to vote for Clinton instead of staying home.
I also know I've convinced people who refuse to vote for Clinton to at least vote downticket.
I always thought the smart club was filled with people who set aside the sensational and discussed policy in detail - those who would sift through the nonsense and the noise to address real human need and crisis. I though the FRC was the kind of "smart club" that engaged in such discussion, because rigorous discourse and debate changes minds and inspires action. Apparently, per Scott, they are the 'ignore it because it is annoying and futile' club.
I always thought the smart club was filled with people who set aside the sensational and discussed policy in detail - those who would sift through the nonsense and the noise to address real human need and crisis. I thought the FRC was the kind of "smart club" that engaged in such discussion, because rigorous discourse and debate changes minds and inspires action. Apparently, per Scott, they are the 'ignore it because it is annoying and futile' club.
I've been on here for I think six years now and the only mind I've ever changed was I got Rym to refer to "Confederate States" instead of "Slave States" -- which isn't even an opinion, it's just semantics. The only time the FRC has changed my mind was it drove me away from atheism (funny that). Twitter has yielded nothing but getting blocked by strangers. Your ideals are nice but at this point it's Pavlovian.
I know that I've actually convinced a few people to not vote for Jill Stein who otherwise would have, and also some people to vote for Clinton instead of staying home.
I also know I've convinced people who refuse to vote for Clinton to at least vote downticket.
You were the reason for my radical atheist phase. You were also the reason for my conversion to Christianity. Make of that what you will.
How is it pavlovian to want to learn more about our potential leaders so that we can help shape social and political discussion of meaningful issues, write letters, protest, etc.?
How do you convince someone who believes that serious questions need to be raised on human biodiversity (alt-right way of saying that whites are genetically superior)? People who say taking on refugees is white genocide? People who believe that all Muslims should be kept out because they are the ones who conduct terrorist attacks?
I have yet to have any sort of debate with trump supporters that I know personally, mostly because I feel like their ideas come from a very selfish point of view and you can't change that in one debate. I think you'd have to tear down their entire world view to change their mind, debate from first principals. If you aren't willing to go to that level, more likely than not people just become even more dogmatic. It's commonly referred to as the backfire effect.
I argue publicly with those people to shame others who might yet be saved. To make them look foolish. I work actively to rhetorically sabotage and undermine them. I use them as examples to others, to ostracize the very expression of their ideas in the face of vicious and unending attack.
If I disagree with someone on first principles, I basically write them off and take the fight directly to the ideas they espouse.
Many of you are arguing here to cede that ideological space to evil and ignorance. I say argue as a Use of Weapons.
I don't expect to convince these sorts of people. But I do expect that every word out of their mouths in polite society is vigorously attacked, that they be forced to at all corners defend their abhorrence time and time again. Wear them down. They'll either exit polite society, driving this vile garbage further from open expression, explode in violence that allows society to remove them from itself, or actually accept that their arguments were false, their worldview a fallacy.
Don't cede ground to evil. Not in deeds, not in words.
If discourse and rhetoric have no effect, then how has anything ever changed?
And idea you are unwilling to defend is nothing. An idea you can't defend is wrong, or you must at least concede that it is arbitrary.
And idea you are unwilling to defend is nothing. An idea you can't defend is wrong, or you must at least concede that it is arbitrary.
I have defended my ideals. Many times. I don't need to prove myself right anymore. Does that make my politics moot? Yes. That's part of the premise of my choice. My Populist convictions need to take a backseat so that I can take care of myself.
The issue with trump supporters who "hate him but will still probably vote for him" is they, apparently, value fiscal conservatism over the abhorrent social change he's sure to bring about.
It's like they're sports fans who don't care their star quarterback is also beating his wife and hosting dog fights in his house.
The issue with trump supporters who "hate him but will still probably vote for him" is they, apparently, value fiscal conservatism over the abhorrent social change he's sure to bring about.
Or they are single issue voters who dislike Hillary's stance on X topic (such as abortion).
The issue with trump supporters who "hate him but will still probably vote for him" is they, apparently, value fiscal conservatism over the abhorrent social change he's sure to bring about.
It's like they're sports fans who don't care their star quarterback is also beating his wife and hosting dog fights in his house.
That seems like a pretty good description of a lot of people. The "abhorrent social change" will indirectly benefit them, because they're racist white people and will have less competition.
I don't know what you've read, I only notice it when it's super popular. I've not been a big fan of the series. I will say I could see a slightly interesting RPG setting where king's either have giant mecha's or morph into titans.
This gave me a light chuckle. I didn't know it was a common joke around the world that other countries should be able to vote in our elections because what we do has such an effect on the rest of the world.
Yeah, I want the rest of the world to vote and get 10 electoral college delegates or something.
Sounds good to me, on three conditions.
1) Only people living in Scott-approved free countries can vote. I don't want to see some dictator forcing all his citizens to vote for X candidate. Finland is approved, Eritrea is not.
2) You gotta pay some taxes to get a vote. No taxation without representation goes backwards also. No representation without taxation.
3) Foreigners are going to pick based on a candidates foreign policy only. Once elected that candidate still has a large effect on domestic policy. If the whole world is voting, I would run on a platform of "I'm going to take all the money in the US and give it to every other country! Wooo!"
To balance this out, there are two solutions.
3a) We vote in your elections also! Reciprocity.
3b) Our government, that you voted for, has sovereignty over you, and you must abide by laws we make.
The rhetoric around that subject is along the lines of, "Do you want other nations telling america what to do?" or "Do you want the Chinese to control us?" I remember the teacher in my current events class, Mr Wilhelm making that argument (though I think in his case it's more in jest... he was a republican, but I don't think he was dumb). He did a lot of presenting hyperbole for "his side" against the majority of the students usually similarly rhetorical statements.
The actual argument should be, "We should have at least some concern for the rest of the world and how our decisions effect them, but how much?" but that doesn't really have a "hurrah" response.
Yeah, I want the rest of the world to vote and get 10 electoral college delegates or something.
Sounds good to me, on three conditions.
1) Only people living in Scott-approved free countries can vote. I don't want to see some dictator forcing all his citizens to vote for X candidate. Finland is approved, Eritrea is not.
2) You gotta pay some taxes to get a vote. No taxation without representation goes backwards also. No representation without taxation.
3) Foreigners are going to pick based on a candidates foreign policy only. Once elected that candidate still has a large effect on domestic policy. If the whole world is voting, I would run on a platform of "I'm going to take all the money in the US and give it to every other country! Wooo!"
To balance this out, there are two solutions.
3a) We vote in your elections also! Reciprocity.
3b) Our government, that you voted for, has sovereignty over you, and you must abide by laws we make.
The original point is that 3b is already mostly true for many nations in the world.
Yeah, I want the rest of the world to vote and get 10 electoral college delegates or something.
Sounds good to me, on three conditions.
1) Only people living in Scott-approved free countries can vote. I don't want to see some dictator forcing all his citizens to vote for X candidate. Finland is approved, Eritrea is not.
2) You gotta pay some taxes to get a vote. No taxation without representation goes backwards also. No representation without taxation.
3) Foreigners are going to pick based on a candidates foreign policy only. Once elected that candidate still has a large effect on domestic policy. If the whole world is voting, I would run on a platform of "I'm going to take all the money in the US and give it to every other country! Wooo!"
To balance this out, there are two solutions.
3a) We vote in your elections also! Reciprocity.
3b) Our government, that you voted for, has sovereignty over you, and you must abide by laws we make.
The original point is that 3b is already mostly true for many nations in the world.
Literally the entire EU. Pretty much any Enforcement of foreign judgments treaty or agreement, of which there's many.
Also, a bit rich to demand sovrenty over other nations, when you already have parts of the US and places in the world that are subject to US law and regulations, where citizens pay their taxes to the US, but don't have a vote in Presidential elections. Y'all can't even give all your own folk the vote, and you want to rule over other people? Get your shit together.
Literally the entire EU. Pretty much any Enforcement of foreign judgments treaty or agreement, of which there's many.
Also, a bit rich to demand sovrenty over other nations, when you already have parts of the US and places in the world that are subject to US law and regulations, where citizens pay their taxes to the US, but don't have a vote in Presidential elections. Y'all can't even give all your own folk the vote, and you want to rule over other people? Get your shit together.
I want people in DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. to be able to vote. I don't agree with that policy.
As for treaties, every country signed those. Don't complain to some other country that you signed a treaty with them you don't like. You didn't have to sign it. Here in the US we have all kinds of treaties fucking us over that we hate, and we just complain to our own government to not sign them. They sign anyway, and fuck us, but at least there's a fight. NAFTA was a big fuss, and nowadays it's the TPP.
Comments
I also know I've convinced people who refuse to vote for Clinton to at least vote downticket.
I have yet to have any sort of debate with trump supporters that I know personally, mostly because I feel like their ideas come from a very selfish point of view and you can't change that in one debate. I think you'd have to tear down their entire world view to change their mind, debate from first principals. If you aren't willing to go to that level, more likely than not people just become even more dogmatic. It's commonly referred to as the backfire effect.
If I disagree with someone on first principles, I basically write them off and take the fight directly to the ideas they espouse.
Many of you are arguing here to cede that ideological space to evil and ignorance. I say argue as a Use of Weapons.
I don't expect to convince these sorts of people. But I do expect that every word out of their mouths in polite society is vigorously attacked, that they be forced to at all corners defend their abhorrence time and time again. Wear them down. They'll either exit polite society, driving this vile garbage further from open expression, explode in violence that allows society to remove them from itself, or actually accept that their arguments were false, their worldview a fallacy.
Don't cede ground to evil. Not in deeds, not in words.
If discourse and rhetoric have no effect, then how has anything ever changed?
And idea you are unwilling to defend is nothing. An idea you can't defend is wrong, or you must at least concede that it is arbitrary.
As Bob Dylan said, I'm just a song and dance man.
It's like they're sports fans who don't care their star quarterback is also beating his wife and hosting dog fights in his house.
The "abhorrent social change" will indirectly benefit them, because they're racist white people and will have less competition.
1) Only people living in Scott-approved free countries can vote. I don't want to see some dictator forcing all his citizens to vote for X candidate. Finland is approved, Eritrea is not.
2) You gotta pay some taxes to get a vote. No taxation without representation goes backwards also. No representation without taxation.
3) Foreigners are going to pick based on a candidates foreign policy only. Once elected that candidate still has a large effect on domestic policy. If the whole world is voting, I would run on a platform of "I'm going to take all the money in the US and give it to every other country! Wooo!"
To balance this out, there are two solutions.
3a) We vote in your elections also! Reciprocity.
3b) Our government, that you voted for, has sovereignty over you, and you must abide by laws we make.
The actual argument should be, "We should have at least some concern for the rest of the world and how our decisions effect them, but how much?" but that doesn't really have a "hurrah" response.
Also, a bit rich to demand sovrenty over other nations, when you already have parts of the US and places in the world that are subject to US law and regulations, where citizens pay their taxes to the US, but don't have a vote in Presidential elections. Y'all can't even give all your own folk the vote, and you want to rule over other people? Get your shit together.
As for treaties, every country signed those. Don't complain to some other country that you signed a treaty with them you don't like. You didn't have to sign it. Here in the US we have all kinds of treaties fucking us over that we hate, and we just complain to our own government to not sign them. They sign anyway, and fuck us, but at least there's a fight. NAFTA was a big fuss, and nowadays it's the TPP.