Morality and political affiliations
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. ISO #1

    Morality and political affiliations

    Making a new thread to avoid derailing the Bible one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Totally unrelated but I think most of the people here lean left. I wonder if you can set your bias aside and consider what it means that you consider a political affiliation an insult or some sort of morally reprehensible condition.
    I consider authoritarianism as absolutely reprehensible: it results in horrors, as history clearly shows. And to take a more precise example, I'm pretty sure you won't find many people around who think being politically affiliated to nazis isn't morally reprehensible.
    I have a hard time believing all affiliations are equally moral, since they inherently mean their followers lean towards X Y Z morality standards (abortion good/bad, freedom of speech good/bad, social measures good/bad, genocides good/bad, etc.)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  2. ISO #2

  3. ISO #3

  4. ISO #4

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I consider authoritarianism as absolutely reprehensible: it results in horrors, as history clearly shows. And to take a more precise example, I'm pretty sure you won't find many people around who think being politically affiliated to nazis isn't morally reprehensible.
    I have a hard time believing all affiliations are equally moral, since they inherently mean their followers lean towards X Y Z morality standards (abortion good/bad, freedom of speech good/bad, social measures good/bad, genocides good/bad, etc.)
    Sure, but in context to my quote I was pointing out someone calling the site a "Far right cesspool."

    I would agree not all affiliations are equally moral but this idea that being a republican or being a democrat is a morally bad affiliation is very toxic. I would like people to consider what it means to go from being able to accept someone holds different political beliefs from yours to judging their political beliefs as morally wrong and yours morally right. I believe there is so very much wrong with that thought process.

    It can be justified by pointing to the extremes of genocide and such but that holds no bearing on the context of Republicrat vs Democran.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  5. ISO #5

  6. ISO #6

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Sure, but in context to my quote I was pointing out someone calling the site a "Far right cesspool."

    I would agree not all affiliations are equally moral but this idea that being a republican or being a democrat is a morally bad affiliation is very toxic. I would like people to consider what it means to go from being able to accept someone holds different political beliefs from yours to judging their political beliefs as morally wrong and yours morally right. I believe there is so very much wrong with that thought process.

    It can be justified by pointing to the extremes of genocide and such but that holds no bearing on the context of Republicrat vs Democran.
    +1

  7. ISO #7

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Contextually, I dont think authoritarianism is necessarily immoral, it depends on if the people in question consent to it or not
    like if Singapore wants authoritarianism, and ppl agree with it, meh, I won’t exactly be singing its praise, but it’s not like it’s forced on them

  8. ISO #8

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Sure, but in context to my quote I was pointing out someone calling the site a "Far right cesspool."

    I would agree not all affiliations are equally moral but this idea that being a republican or being a democrat is a morally bad affiliation is very toxic. I would like people to consider what it means to go from being able to accept someone holds different political beliefs from yours to judging their political beliefs as morally wrong and yours morally right. I believe there is so very much wrong with that thought process.

    It can be justified by pointing to the extremes of genocide and such but that holds no bearing on the context of Republicrat vs Democran.
    Eh, you're right that democrats and republicans are not nazis or stalinists, so the extreme lack of morality the last two have doesn't apply nearly as strongly to the situation in the US. However, as an absolute, you agree that not all affiliations are equally moral. It's quite hard to disagree with that unless you consider morality doesn't exist in any objective manner, if I'm not mistaken. That means American parties, like all other parties, could be unequal when it comes to morality. Rejecting that possibility is lack of nuance. Demonizing one side or the other also is one.

    Now, if you'll allow me a more controversial stance... Pro-democrats may have rioted, but that was condemned by the party and absolutely not actively incited by it. Pro-republicans broke into the fucking Parliament after their leader told them to go there and protest. Sure, the party said it was bad afterwards, but it's not like it wasn't painfully obvious something exactly like that would happen. Also, Democrats don't tell Antifa or far-left groups in general to "stand back and stand by". They also don't actively divide the country to forward their political agenda, or at least not even remotely close to what Republicans have done. Doing all of that is incredibly harmful to democracy and democratic tradition. I'm not saying Democrats are perfect - far from that, especially since the party is large and emcompasses several political affiliations that would actually form different parties in multi-party countries - but they are at least not severely under the already bad standard of political parties, unlike Republicans. Note that I'm not only talking about competence here, but also about how far they're ready to go to forward their political agenda at the expense of the people. That exists everywhere, but it was way too strong these last years.

    Also, I'm not saying I have zero respect for pro-Republicans. I just don't have much for those in the party itself (i.e. governing people) who decided to follow Trump in his... adventure.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  9. ISO #9

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    Contextually, I dont think authoritarianism is necessarily immoral, it depends on if the people in question consent to it or not
    like if Singapore wants authoritarianism, and ppl agree with it, meh, I won’t exactly be singing its praise, but it’s not like it’s forced on them
    People agreeing with authoritarianism? Uhhh.............................................. .

    To take your Singapore example, it's just that the place isn't highly authoritarian, which is why it's probably not too horrible. When it comes to morality, though, it's true that benevolent authoritarianism is possible. If a truly benevolent, competent and immortal dictator was to appear, I could absolutely see myself think about being authoritarian under that guy. The issue is, noone is immortal... and when the good dictator dies, his successor is normally shit, and then people are screwed because morality goes away. Democracy preserves morality better (assuming the people have some morality, which is necessary no matter the government type), which is why it's "morally superior" in the end, even though it isn't directly.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  10. ISO #10

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Singapore is an Asian country, they have a very different worldview, from a European-American perspective it seems very strange, but Asia has a long history of preferring authoritarianism, I mean, even Japan, even today, is pretty much a corporatocracy, they don’t really mind it as much as we do

    and, I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the Democratic riots as being somehow ‘condemned’ by the party, they were not, many prominent Democrats donated to the BLM riots this summer

    and, the Wikipedia page speaks for itself, the riots this summer are ‘protests’, but the riot at the capitol is an ‘insurrection’, what more do you want? virtually everyone - even Trump - condemned what happened in Washington, but many ppl were egging the rioters this Summer on, including the news networks, remmeber how the couple defending their property (with guns, which IIRC they didn’t even shoot) were labeled white supremacists? it’s pretty crazy how hard they’ll try to spin things into a racial narrative

    its funny thinking about it, you dont see the kind of white supremacy ppl are accusing the US of in Romania, and racism is still definitely a thing here, gypsies are not well seen, but there is no ‘systemic effort’ or whatever to oppress them, people just don’t like them; but on the other hand, the united states of america, the only country to fight a war over slavery, is not only MORE racist than Romania is, but on a government level? lol

    really curious how much thought ppl give to these things, or if they just see a poorer black man and go, yep, its those darn WASPs oppressing him and keeping him down

  11. ISO #11

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    not that I don’t think reasonable people exist in the Democratic Party, they probably do, one of them was on Tucker’s show last year, incidentally a CIA agent, not that it matters
    I hope, personally knowing a few Americans and kinda wanting to move there myself at some point, that these people will come to the forefront of the Democratic Party during Biden’s presidency and counterbalance the weird extremism coming from some of the more radical people in that party, like AOC
    I really hope they will just go back to being the party of the lower class and the disadvantaged, and not the party of emphasizing racial and ethnic differences between people, it’s been quite destructive thus far, and it has produced a toxic atmosphere that will go bloody and nasty very soon, I mean, it already has, the riot at the capitol was just the beginning
    imagine how frustrated moderate Republicans must get in that country, if ppl have legitimately lost their jobs or insurance for voicing support of Donald Trump, or for questioning the goals of BLM

  12. ISO #12

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Eh, you're right that democrats and republicans are not nazis or stalinists, so the extreme lack of morality the last two have doesn't apply nearly as strongly to the situation in the US. However, as an absolute, you agree that not all affiliations are equally moral. It's quite hard to disagree with that unless you consider morality doesn't exist in any objective manner, if I'm not mistaken. That means American parties, like all other parties, could be unequal when it comes to morality. Rejecting that possibility is lack of nuance. Demonizing one side or the other also is one.

    Now, if you'll allow me a more controversial stance... Pro-democrats may have rioted, but that was condemned by the party and absolutely not actively incited by it. Pro-republicans broke into the fucking Parliament after their leader told them to go there and protest. Sure, the party said it was bad afterwards, but it's not like it wasn't painfully obvious something exactly like that would happen. Also, Democrats don't tell Antifa or far-left groups in general to "stand back and stand by". They also don't actively divide the country to forward their political agenda, or at least not even remotely close to what Republicans have done. Doing all of that is incredibly harmful to democracy and democratic tradition. I'm not saying Democrats are perfect - far from that, especially since the party is large and emcompasses several political affiliations that would actually form different parties in multi-party countries - but they are at least not severely under the already bad standard of political parties, unlike Republicans. Note that I'm not only talking about competence here, but also about how far they're ready to go to forward their political agenda at the expense of the people. That exists everywhere, but it was way too strong these last years.

    Also, I'm not saying I have zero respect for pro-Republicans. I just don't have much for those in the party itself (i.e. governing people) who decided to follow Trump in his... adventure.
    You are framing one corrupt presidents behavior as the norm for an entire party. The vast majority of people I know only voted Trump because Hillary was such a bad option. They are very anti-socialist and hate how democrats dig up any passion project that comes to mind and throw money at it like a 16 year old girl with her daddys credit card.

    I also really do dislike how people keep framing the capitol riot as 'so much worse' than the innocent business owners having their shops robbed and burnt to the ground. I mean, if you want to talk about republican corruption and evil the way they tricked America into the Iraq war would be a much better example than a riot.

    Regardless Ozy brought up a good point. Religions believing other religions and atheist's are morally wrong makes sense. But political affiliations? If I vote democrat simply to avoid putting a fucktard like Trump in office does that mean I support socialism?If I were to vote republican simply because opening our borders means I will have a much harder time finding work in my industry does that mean I support the rest of the republican addenda?

    This model of persuasion makes me a little sick. It leverages good and evil into political affiliations in a way that justifies extreme behavior and division. As a society we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions but now we push our beliefs on others and have escalated to painting the opposing individual as a 'worse human being' for having an opposing opinion. Its a moral and ethical form of ad hominem cleverly injected into conversations in a way thats nearly impossible to address in an interaction. This type of systemic moral attack is more evil than authoritarianism in my opinion and I consider it a cancer in our society that is more dangerous in many ways.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  13. ISO #13

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I have a hard time believing all affiliations are equally moral, since they inherently mean their followers lean towards X Y Z morality standards (abortion good/bad, freedom of speech good/bad, social measures good/bad, genocides good/bad, etc.)
    The way I interpret the above (but please correct me if I misinterpreted):

    1. Your wording implies having (which may as well be so much simple as having a thought) political affiliation has moral implications. If you ask me, thoughts don't have any morally condemnable value. Similar to freedom of speech but I think that has some very important nuances to it that I'm not really going to get into. Once we get into actions other than speech though, for an affilitation then that's when morality and ethics can kick in.

    2. This implies that people are more morally responsible for morality in systems of government with less parties rather than more, to which if you're trying to find any sort of objective standard of morality (and that morality applies to all in X circumstance equally), means that this line of thinking must be wrong because people are not suddenly responsible for more just because they have two options rather than, say, 6 gifted unto them by society at election day with unique platforms each.

    The reason why that's a problem is because usually in systems of government with less parties to vote for, there is less likely for an option to be taking a stance you actually desire, or even taking stances on issues that were never of your concern. Thus unless you want to become an anarchist or non-voter, you don't really have much of an individualized choice in what you're supposed to be "morally responsible" for by voting for your beliefs and opinions.

    This also would suggest that people who don't participate in government (i.e. voting) or don't have a political affiliation of some sort are morally responsible for less or more things depending on how you look at it.

    (When I say 'morally responsible', I don't mean as in "hey you were 100% responsible for this and its all your fault", I mean it in as having some reasonable level of influence or responsibility or causation in something happening. Such as voting.)
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  14. ISO #14

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Politics is deeply tied to morality. Here in the UK, we're going through our third lockdown. And the government is discussing whether to continue the lockdown to March or May. We've already lost hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs, and extending the lockdown all the way to May carries serious risk of further scarring the economy and ruining the livelihoods of many. During this time, tens of thousands of people are trapped in abusive households with little escape because of the crazy pressure on hostels right now. On the other hand, the R rate has only just dropped below 1, and reopening in March would probably kill tens of thousands of people. What position you take on this issue says so much about what kind of person you are and how you see the world, whether you're aware of that or not.

    How the British public votes in the next election will be a statement about whether they approve or disapprove of the state's handling of the pandemic. Voting them into power again would be a show of tacit approval and acknowledgement of their policies and decisions - the opposition party were very unlikely to handle the pandemic the same way. So yes, it would be morally reprehensible to vote for the incumbent party. However, I'm not going to judge people for voting for them. Judging people in general is rather dumb, because you don't know their life. You don't know what's going on in their head. Judging people in all contexts is a form of self indulgence. You can do it, but getting self righteous over it is just lame.

    I'm also extremely ignorant and only have a tiny slice of the truth. So getting overly invested in my understanding of how the world works and lording over people for it would be extremely short-sighted. Though some of the shit on the right like the "white genocide" conspiracy is pure hateful insanity, it isn't inconceivable I will continue to find some value or wisdom in aspects of the conservative worldview that I wouldn't have found otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  15. ISO #15

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    I don't know if this point is relevant, but somehow it feels like it is - Getting worked up in political arguments is never productive, but people can expect too much sometimes. I know I said what I said above, but expecting civil, pseudo-intellectual discourse at all times with no moralizing when the times we're living in are so loaded and painful is a little entitled in and of itself. My ability to talk about these things in a semi-calm manner is due to my position of privilege - living through third lockdown is hell, but I am by no means getting the brunt of it. Ultimately, the times we're living through are kind of awful, and the discourse reflects that. It's exacerbated by social media, but seeing all the moralizing going around as some contrivance of marketing and social media is a bit short-sighted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  16. ISO #16

  17. ISO #17

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I don't know if this point is relevant, but somehow it feels like it is - Getting worked up in political arguments is never productive, but people can expect too much sometimes. I know I said what I said above, but expecting civil, pseudo-intellectual discourse at all times with no moralizing when the times we're living in are so loaded and painful is a little entitled in and of itself. My ability to talk about these things in a semi-calm manner is due to my position of privilege - living through third lockdown is hell, but I am by no means getting the brunt of it. Ultimately, the times we're living through are kind of awful, and the discourse reflects that. It's exacerbated by social media, but seeing all the moralizing going around as some contrivance of marketing and social media is a bit short-sighted.
    Who cares if it’s productive, it’s fun xD

  18. ISO #18

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    You are framing one corrupt presidents behavior as the norm for an entire party. The vast majority of people I know only voted Trump because Hillary was such a bad option. They are very anti-socialist and hate how democrats dig up any passion project that comes to mind and throw money at it like a 16 year old girl with her daddys credit card.

    I also really do dislike how people keep framing the capitol riot as 'so much worse' than the innocent business owners having their shops robbed and burnt to the ground. I mean, if you want to talk about republican corruption and evil the way they tricked America into the Iraq war would be a much better example than a riot.

    Regardless Ozy brought up a good point. Religions believing other religions and atheist's are morally wrong makes sense. But political affiliations? If I vote democrat simply to avoid putting a fucktard like Trump in office does that mean I support socialism?If I were to vote republican simply because opening our borders means I will have a much harder time finding work in my industry does that mean I support the rest of the republican addenda?

    This model of persuasion makes me a little sick. It leverages good and evil into political affiliations in a way that justifies extreme behavior and division. As a society we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions but now we push our beliefs on others and have escalated to painting the opposing individual as a 'worse human being' for having an opposing opinion. Its a moral and ethical form of ad hominem cleverly injected into conversations in a way thats nearly impossible to address in an interaction. This type of systemic moral attack is more evil than authoritarianism in my opinion and I consider it a cancer in our society that is more dangerous in many ways.
    I already said I wasn't talking about pro-Republicans, but about the party itself, its leaders. Also, you'll excuse me, but those following the corrupt president are guilty too. They don't have the "b-but we were following orders" excuse: the US are a democracy, and party members have the right to oppose the president when he does bullshit. But again, it's not the entire party, just the Trumpist part of the leaders of that party. The rest are just misled folks (or people who hate democrats so much they preferred Trump over them, which is honestly somewhat understandable considering how shitty Hillary was).

    Attacking the symbol of democracy in a country that takes pride in its institutions and venerates the Constitution like the Bible goes further than attacking business owners. I'm not saying attacking businesses isn't terrible, but no, it is absolutely not equal to what happened at the Capitol. It's not just a riot, it's a direct act of rebellion against the government. It has a much stronger political weight, in addition to being no less violent.

    What you're talking about isn't a political affiliation, but rather a strategic vote. You aren't affiliated to Democrats if you're voting for them just because you don't want Trump, and you aren't affiliated to Republicans if you're voting for them just because you don't want foreigners to "steal your jobs" (which I agree with, for the record; why take in immigration when your country can't support it? That's off-topic though). I'm talking about those who truly believe what their party is doing is right. Those folks going at Trump rallies aren't just strategic voters, they're praising him lol. Note that this doesn't make them "lesser human beings". It just makes them wrong, on a pragmatic side and, yes, on a moral side. Doing something morally wrong doesn't make you a lesser human being, it just makes you human.

    On "we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions": There was never such an utopia anywhere. If you're talking about the US, just think about how socialists were treated during the Cold War lol. And in France, protests (and riots) are nearly normal, at least in Paris.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  19. ISO #19

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Attacking the symbol of democracy in a country that takes pride in its institutions and venerates the Constitution like the Bible goes further than attacking business owners. I'm not saying attacking businesses isn't terrible, but no, it is absolutely not equal to what happened at the Capitol. It's not just a riot, it's a direct act of rebellion against the government. It has a much stronger political weight, in addition to being no less violent.
    Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree here. I see one side as attacking people who are not responsible for the things they are angry about and the other as attacking the exact people who are responsible for what they are angry about. I also think its really splitting hairs to say its so much more of a big deal to attack that specific government structure than to attack many many government structures all over the place. I have never personally considered the capitol the "symbol of democracy" and this conversation is probably the first time I have herd it referred to as such. If I were to put that label on a building I would personally associate it more strongly with the White House and I think pop culture does as well given how many movies use an attack on it or its distruction for dramatic effect (Independence day, Olympus Has Fallen, White House Down, and even a clip in Die Hard:Live Free or Die Hard.) Probably the only move reference that comes to mind that featured an attack on the Capitol would be the TV show Designated Survivor. I personally think the sudden veneration for the capitol is purely politically motivated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    What you're talking about isn't a political affiliation, but rather a strategic vote. You aren't affiliated to Democrats if you're voting for them just because you don't want Trump, and you aren't affiliated to Republicans if you're voting for them just because you don't want foreigners to "steal your jobs" (which I agree with, for the record; why take in immigration when your country can't support it? That's off-topic though). I'm talking about those who truly believe what their party is doing is right. Those folks going at Trump rallies aren't just strategic voters, they're praising him lol. Note that this doesn't make them "lesser human beings". It just makes them wrong, on a pragmatic side and, yes, on a moral side. Doing something morally wrong doesn't make you a lesser human being, it just makes you human.
    How are they morally wrong for acting on their beliefs? For an extreme example I read an article about an cannibalistic tribe that believed they had to consume their relatives hearts so their souls would live on in them. As much as I disagree with eating your relatives heart I would have to say they are not morally wrong for doing so considering their motivation.
    This is the key issue. Each side views action in favor of their beliefs as 'progress.' Sure there are hateful human beings out there who are racist or sexist but they are on both sides. You are straight up saying here that people who believe what the republican party is doing and support Trump are morally wrong. I think you should reason out how that works without jumping to some extremes like "Supporting Hitler was wrong." Yes Trump was more overtly corrupt than any prior President but you can't assume peoples motives for supporting him and declare them morally wrong. There is a pool of people who will always fight against the democrats because of things like how horribly Obama care screwed up our health system or how financially incompetently run places like New York and California are regardless of what idiot you stick in office.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    On "we were once able to agree to disagree and respect opposing opinions": There was never such an utopia anywhere. If you're talking about the US, just think about how socialists were treated during the Cold War lol. And in France, protests (and riots) are nearly normal, at least in Paris.
    Things were never this bad and I can not remember a time before the last few years where people viewed political stances that opposed their own as evil. Division has always existed but where it use to be abnormal now it is the norm. Its very rare to see people with opposing political views have a civil conversation now. I agree that a utopia never existed but it use to be the norm for people to respect opposing opinions. Now stick the wrong bumper sticker on your car and you might find a brick through your windshield.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  20. ISO #20

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    I realize this is a little off topic, but with all the forum discussions and seeing ppl get really heated (sometimes pointlessly) over politics, how do Americans feel about ppl from other countries weighing in on their politics?
    European politics are far less interesting and glamorous, and I’m wondering if that’s really the case or if it’s an artifact of getting our information through a filter (the media), whereas for local politics ppl understand the context much better and have a more nuanced view of things. Like in Europe I honestly cannot say I know a politician that I would very strongly support, or a political party as a whole, they’re all kind of bad and somewhat corrupt over here as far as I can tell.

    In fact, I’m curious what opinions - if any - people have on European politics or news they have heard about Europe. It might be interesting to compare views ppl have on their own shit va foreign.

  21. ISO #21

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayswandir View Post
    I realize this is a little off topic, but with all the forum discussions and seeing ppl get really heated (sometimes pointlessly) over politics, how do Americans feel about ppl from other countries weighing in on their politics?
    European politics are far less interesting and glamorous, and I’m wondering if that’s really the case or if it’s an artifact of getting our information through a filter (the media), whereas for local politics ppl understand the context much better and have a more nuanced view of things. Like in Europe I honestly cannot say I know a politician that I would very strongly support, or a political party as a whole, they’re all kind of bad and somewhat corrupt over here as far as I can tell.

    In fact, I’m curious what opinions - if any - people have on European politics or news they have heard about Europe. It might be interesting to compare views ppl have on their own shit va foreign.
    I think its kinda fair for other country's to weigh in given how America sticks its nose in every other country's business. At the same time though it can get annoying when someone on the other side of the world acts more informed than I am on how things are in my back yard.. I think a big part of it comes from Americas identity crisis. In many respects Democrats want to do whats best for the world at the expense of America while Republicans want to do whats best for America. That and its not suppressing given the international campaign that was launched by the democratic party 7 or so years ago.

    I find European politics fascinating although I usually only follow some of the tech stuff. Concepts such as declaring an individuals marketing information their intellectual property, preventing data collection on children, and fights over declaring loot boxes gambling have been going on for a while. I watch that stuff because I figure Europe usually takes that first step and then America follows suit 10 years later when public outcry overwhelms lobbyists checkbooks.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  22. ISO #22

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Ehh, that's fair, but comparing what comes close to High Treason (or more accurately, sedition) to business sacking is a bit short-sighted imo. The political impact in the entire country from the Capitol riot goes beyond the impact of looting against simple shop owners everyone will be sad for. It lights up the flames of direct and literal rebellion. On the "human" side of things, I guess you're right, but what you're saying is inaccurate on a larger scale. But anyway, I won't die on that hill lol, just explaining my views here.

    I'm pretty sure many nazis thought they were doing the best thing in centuries by cleaning the parasites of the aryan race from their sacred superior homeland. Doesn't make them any less immoral. Now, I'm obviously not saying trumpists are immoral like Nazis are. I'm only showing that morality isn't just intent. About trumpists themselves, well, what they do is morally wrong, period. That doesn't make them morally inferior as humans, they may have a very strict and correct moral conduct, but supporting someone who does what Trump did, even if you hate democrats, is absolutely morally wrong. But just like how doing something dumb doesn't make you dumb, doing something morally wrong doesn't make you immoral. It's not like they've been killing people either (although you could argue they did with the pandemic...). I'm not saying all trumpists are monsters lol. Just that they're wrong on many levels, including the moral level.

    About division, that's 100 % true. I thought you were saying people used to respect opposing opinions by default, not that it was possible before, whereas it isn't now, in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the Western world. Thanks Trump. Stand back and stand by!
    (yes, there is a bit of irony in blaming Trump for political divisions after saying how bad political divisions are, but it's still true ;-;)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  23. ISO #23

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Ehh, that's fair, but comparing what comes close to High Treason (or more accurately, sedition) to business sacking is a bit short-sighted imo. The political impact in the entire country from the Capitol riot goes beyond the impact of looting against simple shop owners everyone will be sad for. It lights up the flames of direct and literal rebellion. On the "human" side of things, I guess you're right, but what you're saying is inaccurate on a larger scale. But anyway, I won't die on that hill lol, just explaining my views here.
    I understand, but if you want to talk about sedition you gotta include the whole CHAZ thing from Seattle. People went as far as to declare it a separate country while armed vigilantes used violence to extort money, enforce their views, and prevent cops/ambulances from entering the area. I would say that goes more than a few steps further than the capitol riot. Considering violence was being used with the goal of a political outcome (defunding police and other nonsense) you could easily even call it Terrorism by definition.

    I just really see the whole 'capitol riot is awful, other riots were ok' thing as some extreme bias. They were both terrible things but the difference in reaction to them strongly reflects both the bias in individuals as well as how we handle situations as a society.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I'm pretty sure many nazis thought they were doing the best thing in centuries by cleaning the parasites of the aryan race from their sacred superior homeland. Doesn't make them any less immoral. Now, I'm obviously not saying trumpists are immoral like Nazis are. I'm only showing that morality isn't just intent. About trumpists themselves, well, what they do is morally wrong, period. That doesn't make them morally inferior as humans, they may have a very strict and correct moral conduct, but supporting someone who does what Trump did, even if you hate democrats, is absolutely morally wrong. But just like how doing something dumb doesn't make you dumb, doing something morally wrong doesn't make you immoral. It's not like they've been killing people either (although you could argue they did with the pandemic...). I'm not saying all trumpists are monsters lol. Just that they're wrong on many levels, including the moral level.
    Im not sure if we could ever find common ground here. If I supported Hitler back in the day because I did not want my family to be murdered it does not make that action morally wrong. It would make it morally wrong if I supported Hitler because he was killing Jews. Outcomes do not define morality, Intentions do. If they did not manslaughter would not be a charge, you would just get murder if you accidentally caused the death of someone without intent. I actually believe intent is an absolute requirement under the law for a Murder charge (with the exception of 'when accidently caused while committing a crime.)
    Its easy to call supporting the opposing side as a moral wrong and point to Hitler but I think that thought process is an absolute sociological cancer thats killing the unity of America.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    About division, that's 100 % true. I thought you were saying people used to respect opposing opinions by default, not that it was possible before, whereas it isn't now, in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the Western world. Thanks Trump. Stand back and stand by!
    (yes, there is a bit of irony in blaming Trump for political divisions after saying how bad political divisions are, but it's still true ;-;)
    Oh yeah, he instigated the fuck out of that.
    One thing I have my eye on is that he has some massive loans about to be called in and I think its likely some investigation will be done on him. I really hope he looses his public pull because if not he will probably do it again and again as he gets nailed to a wall.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  24. ISO #24

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I understand, but if you want to talk about sedition you gotta include the whole CHAZ thing from Seattle. People went as far as to declare it a separate country while armed vigilantes used violence to extort money, enforce their views, and prevent cops/ambulances from entering the area. I would say that goes more than a few steps further than the capitol riot. Considering violence was being used with the goal of a political outcome (defunding police and other nonsense) you could easily even call it Terrorism by definition.

    I just really see the whole 'capitol riot is awful, other riots were ok' thing as some extreme bias. They were both terrible things but the difference in reaction to them strongly reflects both the bias in individuals as well as how we handle situations as a society.
    Lol yes, CHAZ was completely ridiculous and was absolutely sedition. The thing is, Democrats didn't incite it, afaik. That's the difference I'm talking about. But you're completely right in saying this was no less traitorous than the Capitol events.


    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im not sure if we could ever find common ground here. If I supported Hitler back in the day because I did not want my family to be murdered it does not make that action morally wrong. It would make it morally wrong if I supported Hitler because he was killing Jews. Outcomes do not define morality, Intentions do. If they did not manslaughter would not be a charge, you would just get murder if you accidentally caused the death of someone without intent. I actually believe intent is an absolute requirement under the law for a Murder charge (with the exception of 'when accidently caused while committing a crime.)
    Its easy to call supporting the opposing side as a moral wrong and point to Hitler but I think that thought process is an absolute sociological cancer thats killing the unity of America.
    Again, I'm only talking about those who fully support Trump because they love him and what he's doing, no matter what he is doing. Not about those who think he's the lesser of two evils; those are just factually wrong imo, but not morally. Your parallel with "supporting Hitler because he's gonna murder your family if you don't" and "supporting Hitler because he's killing Jews" is accurate, and is actually the exact thing I'm saying, so I don't even think we are in disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Oh yeah, he instigated the fuck out of that.
    One thing I have my eye on is that he has some massive loans about to be called in and I think its likely some investigation will be done on him. I really hope he looses his public pull because if not he will probably do it again and again as he gets nailed to a wall.
    Hopefully, but now the ball is in the Democrats' court... we'll see
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  25. ISO #25

    Re: Morality and political affiliations

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Hopefully, but now the ball is in the Democrats' court... we'll see
    Made another thread to avoid derailing this one : )

    https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showt...-Trumps-Future
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •