What role and place do conservatives and Republicans have on this fourm?

[Ponn]

But again you haven't said why being a Christian has anything to do with this topic. Is everything on the liberal Side gold no but it's been shown time and time again that Republicans run on a campaign against minority, poor people, women,

Click to shrink...

This is the part where they clam up and you get nothing but crickets. See Republicans and moderates know the "both sides" and compromise arguments look like bullshit when you start comparing Dems wanting UHC and free college to Republicans fighting for Anti-Gay Marriage, banning Transexuals from the military and bathrooms, the ability to discriminate against minority groups, banning Muslims and locking up Mexican children and separating families.

 

[Chojin]

Didn't think I was ignoring it. Couldn't agree more with telling people to get fucked that are trolls and bigots.

Fascism literally encompasses forcibly surpressing of the opposition. It's a private site and can do what it wants, but forcibly banning people for being conservative is close minded and shares similarities to most things I see folks on this site advocate against.

Click to shrink...

I think the issue is you may be misinterpreting the definition of facism.

Fascism is Nationalistic Authoritarianism. Its diametrically opposed to Liberalism.

Now you may feel conservatives that get banned is a a totalitarian move, but its not really Fascism.

There are plenty of conservatives on this site that speak their mind. And as you said its a private site and it has its own terms of service.

Review them, then review the bannings and the reasonings behind the bans. Look at the context.

 

[kbear]

You just did it right now! You ignored my actual questions (4 of them) and, instead, address the subsequent complaint about the lack of answer to the question, while never actually answering the questions themselves!

Textbook definition of gaslighting. Engaging you was indeed a mistake. I'm done.

Click to shrink...

Was it this one below? I don't want that label on me because it's not accurate, even though it's unreasonable to answer every question in the context of this thread as it's just one or two of us knuckleheads answering questions. The thread isn't about me, nor am I ERA's spokesperson for the GOP. I'm going to answer your questions, regardless. ​

Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

Let's assume that, one year from now, you decide that you were wrong, that Trump is the worst president ever and that you did a harmful thing voting for him, and that you are technically partially responsible for the suffering, deaths and corruption of lots and lots of people. That, in fact, he didn't help the economy at all and is exactly what the left (and republican never-trumpers) have been saying he is all along. Basically one step short of Mussolini. An american Erdogan. An absolute shit stain on this country's history.

My question is:


How ashamed or disgusted would you feel?
How much would you blame him for tricking you and how much would you blame yourself for allowing yourself to fall for it?
And, finally, how long would it take you to forgive yourself?

This is my hypothetical question to you.

Any other trump voters can feel free to also answer. I'm genuinely curious. I want to understand this phenomenon better.

Click to shrink...

I did read this yesterday and it's a needlessly contentious hypothetical that would add little to the discussion.

"you are technically partially responsible for the suffering, deaths and corruption of lots and lots of people"

Click to shrink...

…how do you expect someone to answer your questions when you begin the post with this line? It's over-the-top absurdity.

How ashamed or disgusted would you feel?

Click to shrink...

So, how ashamed and disgusted would I feel about being "partially responsible for the suffering and deaths of millions"... I mean, unless you're a Bond villain or something how do you think any regular person would feel being responsible for the deaths of millions?

How much would you blame him for tricking you and how much would you blame yourself for allowing yourself to fall for it?

Click to shrink...

So, how much would I blame myself and him if your hypothetical scenario happened and everything fell apart in a year or two? What kind of answer are you expecting from these types of questions? They add nothing and I can't figure out how they would "help you understand the phenomenon better." This is why I ignored your post and tried to focus on ones that actually added something to the discussion instead of vague, hypothetical, borderline silly, gotcha attempts.

And, finally, how long would it take you to forgive yourself?

Click to shrink...

What is your goal with this stuff, Gozu? I'm not upset nor am I trying to be condescending; I'm genuinely confused as to why you'd think answering these questions that, unless you're Albert Wesker, you should already know what the other person is going to say?

Yes, if I was "partially responsible for the deaths and suffering of millions of people", Gozu, I'd feel absolutely disgusted and ashamed and I'd never be able to forgive myself. What does this add to the discussion, man? Were you hoping for a different answer? Come on. There's like 2 or 3 people from the other side answering questions in this thread and, frankly, nonsense like this isn't worth the time because there's so many other questions that aren't over-the-top hypotheticals that deserve a response. We're adults with a finite amount of time and I've spent 25 minutes of my morning on this one. If that sounds harsh, so be it.

If the thread is still open tonight, I'd like to answer a few more posts from others that were more relevant.


Edit: This is all ignoring the fact that the argument where someone's vote makes them partially responsible for potential, hypothetical atrocities in the future that the person you voted for committed isn't completely absurd. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and replied in a way where your hypothesis was reasonable. ​

 

[Chittagong]

I feel this thread starts to go in circles. I would suggest the mods sticky a conclusion and policy of sorts.

Here are my takeaways from this thread

1 - There is no role and place for conservative / tory / republican posters to be out in the open on Era, even if you are pro-LGBT

2 - Political / sensitive threads are for leftists only

3 - If you are conservative / tory / republican, it is ok to post in non-political threads (eg. gaming, movies, sports, tech, health), as long as you don't expose your views there

As a conservative yet pro-LGBT poster, I am personally fine with such an approach. It gives the forum a crystal clear positioning - Era is a left/hard left gaming and entertainment forum. Conservatives are welcome to enjoy the gaming and entertainment content, being mindful of where they are on any political topics.

Does that sound like a fair summary?

 

[RedMercury]

I feel this thread starts to go in circles. I would suggest the mods sticky a conclusion and policy of sorts.

Click to shrink...

Okay

I mean, kind of shitty to want to shut down discussion other people find productive because you don't personally find it productive

Does that sound like a fair summary?

Click to shrink...

Nope

1 - There is no role and place for conservative / tory / republican posters to be out in the open on Era, even if you are pro-LGBT

Click to shrink...

Not if you are pro-racism and pro-bigotry. Nobody is going to be banned for thinking the military needs more fighter jets or a tax cut for the rich helps the economy, even if it's wrong-headed.

2 - Political / sensitive threads are for leftists only

Click to shrink...

"Leftists"

What do you think a Leftist is?

3 - If you are conservative / tory / republican, it is ok to post in non-political threads (eg. gaming, movies, sports, tech, health), as long as you don't expose your views there

Click to shrink...

Probably not a great idea to be racist and stuff, just saying. If you aren't you should have no trouble participating.

Era is a left/hard left gaming and entertainment forum.

Click to shrink...

lol come on now, this is completely untrue.

Half the posters here can't even agree on what should be the most basic of liberal stuff. Go into any discussion about women or trans or black or any minority issue and it's readily apparent.

Now what I'm interested in is how you consider yourself a "Pro-LGBT" conservative when your people are trying to take protections away from those you would claim to support.

 

[Killz4Twinkies]

This is an exceedingly narrow view of Fascism, in fact it's simply one of over a dozen facets of a government's activities and policies which exemplify the term.

But since this is the definition of fascism you're running with, how are we to address the GOP suppressing minority and student voters? How should one react in the face of this fascism? Are we expected to simply ignore it? Write sternly-worded letters? Compromise with them, and only allow them to suppress students, not minorities?

How do you compromise with insanity without becoming insane yourself?

Click to shrink...

Agreed that it is one sliver of the broader definition, that was the intention.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions in good faith.

I don't think anyone should have their vote suppressed, it's bs full stop. Both sides engage in manipulating rules in their favor. As far as addressing it, i'd agree minority, student, low income population have a harder time voting... I think education ahead of time on steps to be able to vote is one way (many organizations taking part in this). Lyft providing free or discounted rides for people is an awesome idea imo. I'm sure an unpopular opinion here, but i do think you should have to have some form of ID to vote, and it should be an easier process than it currently is to attain ID.

Reacting in the face of fascism. Simple, I dont think we live in a fascist society, actually the furthest thing from it. We have a shitstain president who says stupid shit on Twitter, and hopefully he gets primaried for 2020.

I believe in the vocal minority/silent majority. That the most vocal is the fringe right and left, and most folks are closer to the center. As I said earlier, trolls/bigots etc., tell em to F off, no need for that nonsense. But yes, for the people that are center-ish, I do think there should be compromise or at the very least civil discourse. And i'll add before it gets piled on, I agree there should be no compromise with racism, anti-gay, etc...

Should we just suppress students, not minorities? No, every legal citizen should be able to vote, period.

-- Traveling, so not ignoring, but may be delayed responses

 

[Chittagong]

Okay

I mean, kind of shitty to want to shut down discussion other people find productive because you don't personally find it productive


Nope


Not if you are pro-racism and pro-bigotry. Nobody is going to be banned for thinking the military needs more fighter jets or a tax cut for the rich helps the economy, even if it's wrong-headed.

"Leftists"

What do you think a Leftist is?

Probably not a great idea to be racist and stuff, just saying. If you aren't you should have no trouble participating.


lol come on now, this is completely untrue.

Half the posters here can't even agree on what should be the most basic of liberal stuff. Go into any discussion about women or trans or black or any minority issue and it's readily apparent.

Now what I'm interested in is how you consider yourself a "Pro-LGBT" conservative when your people are trying to take protections away from those you would claim to support.

Click to shrink...

I think being pro-LGBT and not a racist is common human decency. It should not be a defining quality of a political movement. It should be hygiene.

It's not today. But also, conservative parties will never disappear, there will never be just leftist parties. So I'd much rather live in a world where conservative parties are populated by tolerant, pro-LGBT people.

Maybe best to qualify this with the fact that I am an Finn living in UK. It might sound nuts in the GOP world, but you can have more common human decency in conservative parties than GOP has.

 

[Mulciber]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question:

Let's assume that, one year from now, you decide that you were wrong, that Trump is the worst president ever and that you did a harmful thing voting for him, and that you are technically partially responsible for the suffering, deaths and corruption of lots and lots of people. That, in fact, he didn't help the economy at all and is exactly what the left (and republican never-trumpers) have been saying he is all along. Basically one step short of Mussolini. An american Erdogan. An absolute shit stain on this country's history.

My question is:


How ashamed or disgusted would you feel?
How much would you blame him for tricking you and how much would you blame yourself for allowing yourself to fall for it?
And, finally, how long would it take you to forgive yourself?

This is my hypothetical question to you.

Any other trump voters can feel free to also answer. I'm genuinely curious. I want to understand this phenomenon better.

Click to shrink...

This isn't explicitly aimed at me, but I can answer part of what you are talking about. My first presidential election was 2000. I voted for Bush. I was really liking some of the things he was saying on the campaign trail, and back then I mostly voted Republican.

So one thing he campaigned on was that we shouldn't go abroad "nation building." Then, after getting elected, he immediately said we needed to do that in Iraq, and now, we're still there, 16 years later. Anyway, at the time, I felt pretty angry and betrayed. I was - at the time - a Republican campaign donor, and since that vote have worked for a Republican campaign.

The first immediate thing it did was cause me to not vote for Bush in 2004. Right before that election, one of my friends died in the war in Afghanistan. I actually did feel partially responsible and terrible.

So many things that Bush and the Republicans did at that time pushed away from the GOP and conservatism. For time, I became really Libertarian, because I seriously couldn't get on board with the awful things conservatives/GOP wanted or actively did in regards to the LGBT+ community, PoC, etc.

When I pulled myself out of that conservative hole, and out of the echo-chamber of conservative ideas, I started thinking more and more on each issue - making up my own decision and not going with the party I felt I needed to be loyal to. This eventually led me on from libertarianism to liberalism, and that's pretty much where I am today, an Obama voter who voted Sanders in the 2016 primary.

 

[Hiphopopotamus]

Agreed that it is one sliver of the broader definition, that was the intention.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions in good faith.

I don't think anyone should have their vote suppressed, it's bs full stop. Both sides engage in manipulating rules in their favor. As far as addressing it, i'd agree minority, student, low income population have a harder time voting... I think education ahead of time on steps to be able to vote is one way (many organizations taking part in this). Lyft providing free or discounted rides for people is an awesome idea imo. I'm sure an unpopular opinion here, but i do think you should have to have some form of ID to vote, and it should be an easier process than it currently is to attain ID.

Reacting in the face of fascism. Simple, I dont think we live in a fascist society, actually the furthest thing from it. We have a shitstain president who says stupid shit on Twitter, and hopefully he gets primaried for 2020.

I believe in the vocal minority/silent majority. That the most vocal is the fringe right and left, and most folks are closer to the center. As I said earlier, trolls/bigots etc., tell em to F off, no need for that nonsense. But yes, for the people that are center-ish, I do think there should be compromise or at the very least civil discourse. And i'll add before it gets piled on, I agree there should be no compromise with racism, anti-gay, etc...

Should we just suppress students, not minorities? No, every legal citizen should be able to vote, period.

-- Traveling, so not ignoring, but may be delayed responses

Click to shrink...

I appreciate your responses, but you've fallen for the same trick that Conservatives have perpetrated for years. The Overton Window has been moved so far right that what you may perceive as "centrist" is by all accounts extremely radical, and the hard-right (not the fringe) is now in neo-Nazi and isolationist territory. Look at where the GOP mainstream is now: not only is illegal immigration a scourge, but legal immigrants and birthright citizenship are now a danger to our "demographics."

You've chosen a convenient time to establish what is and isn't "centrist" which seems to only benefit the freaks and weirdos of the GOP. Even your assumption that people don't show ID to vote is taken directly from the people who have so tilted the playing field in their favor that the act of playing by the rules is such a fools game that a group like the WI or NC-GOP consistently get fewer votes, but retain a lion's share of elected offices.

Why would I recommend that we begin compromises with folks who have done everything legal, or illegal to steal Democracy from the majority and give it to oligarchs and fascists?

 

[rjinaz]

I feel this thread starts to go in circles. I would suggest the mods sticky a conclusion and policy of sorts.

Here are my takeaways from this thread

1 - There is no role and place for conservative / tory / republican posters to be out in the open on Era, even if you are pro-LGBT

2 - Political / sensitive threads are for leftists only

3 - If you are conservative / tory / republican, it is ok to post in non-political threads (eg. gaming, movies, sports, tech, health), as long as you don't expose your views there

As a conservative yet pro-LGBT poster, I am personally fine with such an approach. It gives the forum a crystal clear positioning - Era is a left/hard left gaming and entertainment forum. Conservatives are welcome to enjoy the gaming and entertainment content, being mindful of where they are on any political topics.

Does that sound like a fair summary?

Click to shrink...

Seems alright to me. If being labeled as a liberal bubble website means not having to read liberal shaming posts, selfish, and downright bigoted posts all in the name of tax cuts or the ridiculous notion that we need to see both sides to every issue, I think this place will be better for it. We don't really lose anything as far as I'm concerned and moderation won't have to hang around in threads waiting for obvious Trump supporters pretending they don't even like Trump to slip up.

Though I'm sure I'm in the minority and that's just my opinion. I'm 35 with a job. I don't have the time or need to try to change the minds of people that can do what I did and do it on their own on the internet.

 

[JohnisJohn]

I feel this thread starts to go in circles. I would suggest the mods sticky a conclusion and policy of sorts.

Here are my takeaways from this thread

1 - There is no role and place for conservative / tory / republican posters to be out in the open on Era, even if you are pro-LGBT

2 - Political / sensitive threads are for leftists only

3 - If you are conservative / tory / republican, it is ok to post in non-political threads (eg. gaming, movies, sports, tech, health), as long as you don't expose your views there

As a conservative yet pro-LGBT poster, I am personally fine with such an approach. It gives the forum a crystal clear positioning - Era is a left/hard left gaming and entertainment forum. Conservatives are welcome to enjoy the gaming and entertainment content, being mindful of where they are on any political topics.

Does that sound like a fair summary?

Click to shrink...

Pretty much seems to be the case. Maybe we can start a conservative hangout haha. That way all of our small government / personal responsibility ideals can be stopped from contaminating the rest of the forum.

Edit- I see there is a conservative era now

 

[Tfritz]

Era is a really far leftist website and that's why anytime anyone posts anything in the gaming side that comes even remotely close to suggesting whatever AAA flavor of the month game isn't the most perfect shining example of representation, a huge meltdown ensues.

 

[Heromanz]

Pretty much seems to be the case. Maybe we can start a conservative hangout haha. That way all of our small government / personal responsibility ideals can be stopped from contaminating the rest of the forum.

Edit- I see there is a conservative era now

Click to shrink...

Personal responsibility ideals?

 

[Skelepuzzle]

Personal responsibility ideals?

Click to shrink...

Democrats, especially some Democrats, are lazy and should have had the wherewithal to inherit generations of wealth and opportunity.

That lazy jobless crack addict needs to get a job so that we can help the poor, out of work rural man who has turned to opioids out of sorrow.

 

[gozu]

Was it this one below? I don't want that label on me because it's not accurate, even though it's unreasonable to answer every question in the context of this thread as it's just one or two of us knuckleheads answering questions. The thread isn't about me, nor am I ERA's spokesperson for the GOP. I'm going to answer your questions, regardless. ​

I did read this yesterday and it's a needlessly contentious hypothetical that would add little to the discussion.


…how do you expect someone to answer your questions when you begin the post with this line? It's over-the-top absurdity.

So, how ashamed and disgusted would I feel about being "partially responsible for the suffering and deaths of millions"... I mean, unless you're a Bond villain or something how do you think any regular person would feel being responsible for the deaths of millions?


So, how much would I blame myself and him if your hypothetical scenario happened and everything fell apart in a year or two? What kind of answer are you expecting from these types of questions? They add nothing and I can't figure out how they would "help you understand the phenomenon better." This is why I ignored your post and tried to focus on ones that actually added something to the discussion instead of vague, hypothetical, borderline silly, gotcha attempts.


What is your goal with this stuff, Gozu? I'm not upset nor am I trying to be condescending; I'm genuinely confused as to why you'd think answering these questions that, unless you're Albert Wesker, you should already know what the other person is going to say?

Yes, if I was "partially responsible for the deaths and suffering of millions of people", Gozu, I'd feel absolutely disgusted and ashamed and I'd never be able to forgive myself. What does this add to the discussion, man? Were you hoping for a different answer? Come on. There's like 2 or 3 people from the other side answering questions in this thread and, frankly, nonsense like this isn't worth the time because there's so many other questions that aren't over-the-top hypotheticals that deserve a response. We're adults with a finite amount of time and I've spent 25 minutes of my morning on this one. If that sounds harsh, so be it.

If the thread is still open tonight, I'd like to answer a few more posts from others that were more relevant.


Edit: This is all ignoring the fact that the argument where someone's vote makes them partially responsible for potential, hypothetical atrocities in the future that the person you voted for committed isn't completely absurd. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and replied in a way where your hypothesis was reasonable. ​

Click to shrink...

needlessly contentious? i think it's needed. Here is the thing, if you only engage in things you understand and are familiar with, you will not learn anything. Do you think you will somehow be better served reading the same post telling you you're wrong over and over and over again?

Being partially responsible for the consequences of the actions of the person you voted for is over the top absurdity? I disagree.

Partially can mean you played a very, very small part. That is obviously what I meant. If there are 50 mil who voted for trump then each is a ~0.0000005% responsible for the things he does. This is how voting works. Please tell me you agree. Nevermind, just read the last of your post and you do not actually agree to something so self-evident.

My goal is to know what will happen if you wake up from your erroneous reality in which Trump is anything but a catastrophe, as the vast, vast, vast majority of people here ALREADY know, because he has proved it a thousand times over.

Best case scenario would be for you to accept your are imperfect, try to make sincere amends and forgive yourself.

THAT is what I want. Not you stuck in a vicious circle of self-loathing.

Unfortunately, you just said "i would feel absolutely disgusted and ashamed and I'd never be able to forgive myself". That is the answer I dreaded. Why in fuck's sake would you go OUT of your way to feel absolutely disgusted, ashamed and never be able to forgive yourself? You, wouldn't, right? You would go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting it to yourself. And from MY point of view (which is BTW the correct one) you are deluded about Trump. You also don't care about brown people, which kinda sucks, but there we are. You justified it to yourself with your macro-economics BS.

PS: Don't whine about your 25 minutes. I've wasted way, way more on you and I never complained. Sheesh.

 

[Hiphopopotamus]

So, are we to assume that ERA is only populated by the 18% of the GOP that aren't bigoted scumbags?

If that's the fact, then maybe our Conservative friends should recognize that their opinions mean nothing to the nu-Conservatives who now rule in their names

MOST DONALD TRUMP VOTERS DON'T THINK USING THE N-WORD IS RACIST, OR EVEN OFFENSIVE, NEW POLL INDICATES
https://www.resetera.com/threads/po...ers-believe-using-the-n-word-is-racist.65484/

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

What I did today, I'd imagine, would be the same if we had a Democratic President and a democratic controlled congress. Can't say I agree with you.

Click to shrink...

This is correct.

I'm black. straight. I don't think any of that matters though. Back to my original point. If you meet someone new, and by some happenstance you learn they have a political label opposite of yours, don't ridicule or dismiss them straight away. Get to know them and make a determination through experience. Someone telling me they are left or right leaning doesn't move my needle at all.

Click to shrink...

Stop making so much sense!

 

[Firefoxprime]

Is it the rape, incest or the whipping of Pharisees that tickles your pickle? I too would like to make common cause with table flipping communist zombies. Just sayin'

Click to shrink...

That's a solid point you made. Hefty on the nose but still solid. Those Pharisees you brought up were actually some, if the not most (full of themselves) religious people around. Jesus actually had to check'em constantly because they were so pompous and thought they were better than everyone else. Because they "followed the rules" they treated those who didn't like trash.

I'm not ignoring the other stuff you wrote, but you'll have to dm me as to not derail the thread.

 

[NoName999]

So only 18% of Trump voters think the n-word is racist.

Mind telling me why Trump voters should have a place here?

Or hell, conservatives in general. I'm sure far right Europeans think using blatantly racist slurs are really racist either.

Oh but God forbid you call half of them deplorable/racist or any other factual thing about them though.

 

[Firefoxprime]

But again you haven't said why being a Christian has anything to do with this topic. Is everything on the liberal Side gold no but it's been shown time and time again that Republicans run on a campaign against minority, poor people, women,

Click to shrink...

The topics Heromanz, the topics. If you subscribe to something, it will more than likely be your source of influence.

Because, I've choose to align my life to that path, there will be national/potical topics or concerns that I'll support or not support. Alot of those national issues lie on both conservative and liberal bases.

So while some people lean firmly on either liberal or conservative, I sit closer to the middle. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The topics Heromanz, the topics. If you subscribe to something, it will more than likely be your source of influence.

Because, I've choose to align my life to that path, there will be national/potical topics or concerns that I'll support or not support. Alot of those national issues lie on both conservative and liberal bases.

So while some people lean firmly on either liberal or conservative, I sit closer to the middle. Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

Click to shrink...

What topics

 

[Top NHST Product]

Will any of the socially progressive/fiscal conservatives be kind enough to break down the net gain/loss of Republican socioeconomic policies that they support vs what many on this site advocate for? I want to see what factors into your decision making process.

 

[Chittagong]

Will any of the socially progressive/fiscal conservatives be kind enough to break down the net gain/loss of Republican socioeconomic policies that they support vs what many on this site advocate for? I want to see what factors into your decision making process.

Click to shrink...

I'll give you one example. In UK, labour has been hell bent to abolish the ancient non-dom tax exemption, because "it's not fair that some people pay a smaller percentage of tax".

UK has attracted lot of wealthy, foreign non-doms who pay huge amounts of tax and use very little of the public services. For example, I paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxes last year, and donated a large sum to UK charity. I also bought lot of VAT products and services, and employed four people who paid income tax.

All that money is a UK net gain. It can be used for whatever social cause. But labour wants to end that "because it's not fair", forfeiting a huge part of that essentially free tax surplus to the nation.

https://www.ft.com/content/f96bb528-8e4f-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d

That kind of stuff.

 

[Stop It]

so I guess what currently being done is actually making a difference? You keep expecting those you think lesser of to just wake up one day and change when that's not going to happen without some work from you. You cannot control other people, you can only control what you do. Again I think less focus on being mad and angry at those idiots and more on propping up good things is a start....or at least something different.

I am just saying that the current methods don't seem to be working from my point of view. It seems to only have strengthened that base, push away those sadly on the fence, and stay out of the arms of those simply unaware. Its the last group I think is worth reaching.

This board in general spends so much time on the negative and wallowing in it, when cool shit that actually promotes the values you claim to care about goes basically unnoticed. Look at how many threads are either dedicated to dunking on something people don't like or eventually are steered to that direction. Whereas there have been many a neat announcement of a thing that gets posted and then flies to page 5 ASAP. I remember with the new male DOA 6 character was announced, I didn't find out until like 2 days later because that shit was immediately on page 2-3 with like 15 posts lol. Or when the LIS2 thread was posted it was immediately turned into "why the leads are men" despite being about POC and what should be a rather important tale that deals w/ racism and such.

i am sorry but some times it feels like some, not all, really would rather just be mad about a thing and think that is enough to change when it doesn't seem like that is the case. Do you know how many people see this forum? the reputation is really bad and sure i am certain many of it comes from shitholes but I don't think all of it does.

Again to each their own, I just personally think that the methodology of many here is counterproductive at the end of the day. I could easily be wrong of course and its working perfectly.

Click to shrink...

I can only give a fuck about one set of people here.

On one side is people who are the victim of racism, of sexism, of bigotry and hate. These people need to have their voice amplified and heard.

The other side is composed of people whose questionable views lead them to being criticized for it. Their refrain is to paint themselves as the real victims and being "pushed away". The people who shout "you're the real racists" etc.

If your views are being called out for harming others, how about some self reflection? Nah, too easy to both sides and then claim it's the people who fight against bigotry who are the problem.

This is why US conservatism is so toxic. They push themselves further towards hate and blame the people telling them to fight it.

 

[Tzarscream]

What's that old adage?

Liberals look for traitors, Conservatives look for converts.

In my opinion, left wingers (of which i am one) tend to want to have zero tolerance of hate speech etc and be respectful of everyone. A really good ideal. However Conservatives don't limit themselves to what it takes to bring people around to their side, they will use any tactic that will achieve that.

Conservatives use left winger ideals against them to achieve their goals. I don't think left wingers are sometimes aware that ideals are not enough and there is a larger psychological game at play that we don't engage in, where Conservatives do.

It doesn't matter if something is factual accurate if the other side can use what you do to discredit that fact and make most people distrust you.

That is what the left, in my mind, needs to be aware of.

 

[Top NHST Product]

I'll give you one example. In UK, labour has been hell bent to abolish the ancient non-dom tax exemption, because "it's not fair that some people pay a smaller percentage of tax".

UK has attracted lot of wealthy, foreign non-doms who pay huge amounts of tax and use very little of the public services. For example, I paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxes last year, and donated a large sum to UK charity. I also bought lot of VAT products and services, and employed four people who paid income tax.

All that money is a UK net gain. It can be used for whatever social cause. But labour wants to end that "because it's not fair", forfeiting a huge part of that essentially free tax surplus to the nation.

https://www.ft.com/content/f96bb528-8e4f-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d

That kind of stuff.

Click to shrink...

Article is behind a paywall but I can research it on my own and I'm not from the UK so it will take some time to properly look into this. Thanks for at least responding with something though. A couple of quick questions though.

Is this something pushed more by the Tories/conservatives?
Are the gains from this enough to offset cuts to other programs or dumber policy proposals like brexit (not necessarily to that level)?

It's a much different system than three Republican party operates under which is why I'm interested in seeing how other Americans break down our policies.

 

[phonicjoy]

I'll give you one example. In UK, labour has been hell bent to abolish the ancient non-dom tax exemption, because "it's not fair that some people pay a smaller percentage of tax".

UK has attracted lot of wealthy, foreign non-doms who pay huge amounts of tax and use very little of the public services. For example, I paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxes last year, and donated a large sum to UK charity. I also bought lot of VAT products and services, and employed four people who paid income tax.

All that money is a UK net gain. It can be used for whatever social cause. But labour wants to end that "because it's not fair", forfeiting a huge part of that essentially free tax surplus to the nation.

https://www.ft.com/content/f96bb528-8e4f-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d

That kind of stuff.

Click to shrink...

I don't see how thats either a left or right issue. The problem is that the UK and US only have one party on each side so every position of theirs is immediatly representative of a political ideology to you.

 

[Deleted member 22901]

I'm wary of 99% of right-leaning folks. If you're not supporting the policies trying to strip rights away from minorities, you're probably silently sitting back and voting for the people proposing them anyway. I don't know how to word this without sounding too hostile, but I've noticed a lot of Republicans online like to say they support LGBT people while simultaneously holding transphobic views. It's kind of hard to trust Republicans when those are the kinds of people they share a party with.

I guess if a conservative truly is open to learning and changing their mind, I'm okay with that. It's still hard for me to feel comfortable with them.

 

[Protome]

Maybe best to qualify this with the fact that I am an Finn living in UK. It might sound nuts in the GOP world, but you can have more common human decency in conservative parties than GOP has.

Click to shrink...

There's definitely a far more nuanced conversation to be had about conservatives and U.K. politics (and probably most countries) than in US. I disagree with a most Tory policies but they are mostly somewhat defensible (except their austerity measures which are both crippling the economy and disproportionately harming the poorest parts of the country...there's no defending that shit.) or at least come from some kind of logic that can be backed up even if it's something i disagree with. Except the porn ban, the fuck is that.

At the end of the day it comes down to the voters though. The Tories as a party are ostensibly pro LGBT, pro equality and pro social welfare systems like the NHS because the voters are. As a party, yeah they have been trying to pick away and privatise the NHS piece by piece over the years but they can't just outright sell it off because they know their voters would turn on them for it.

The fact that one of America's biggest parties is more comparable to our fringe far right parties like UKIP, the BNP or whatever than our main right wing party is honestly pretty terrifying as a Brit.

 

[Chittagong]

Article is behind a paywall but I can research it on my own and I'm not from the UK so it will take some time to properly look into this. Thanks for at least responding with something though. A couple of quick questions though.

Is this something pushed more by the Tories/conservatives?
Are the gains from this enough to offset cuts to other programs or dumber policy proposals like brexit (not necessarily to that level)?

It's a much different system than three Republican party operates under which is why I'm interested in seeing how other Americans break down our policies.

Click to shrink...

It's pure gain, since the average tax paid by a non-dom is over £100K / year, and they use less services.

Labour has made it a part of their platform to oppose it, because it's not "fair", even though it's highly profitable to UK.

It's a fringe example and not significant in the greater scheme of things, but it was the first thing that came to mind since it's close to heart.

 

[phonicjoy]

It's pure gain, since the average tax paid by a non-dom is over £100K / year, and they use less services.

Labour has made it a part of their platform to oppose it, because it's not "fair", even though it's highly profitable to UK.

It's a fringe example and not significant in the greater scheme of things, but it was the first thing that came to mind since it's close to heart.

Click to shrink...

Its not a leftist position per definition though. Over here we dont tax non doms and noone is proposing it.

 

[BMatt07]

So only 18% of Trump voters think the n-word is racist.

Mind telling me why Trump voters should have a place here?

Or hell, conservatives in general. I'm sure far right Europeans think using blatantly racist slurs are really racist either.

Oh but God forbid you call half of them deplorable/racist or any other factual thing about them though.

Click to shrink...

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Additionally, the polls given to these 1,000 people asked 47 other political questions that were not reported on by either the Washington Post or Huffington Post. I suspect that if the omitted questions and answers painted Conservatives in a negative light then they certainly would have been included in the article. They can post the whole poll or stfu.

 

[LukeOP]

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Additionally, the polls given to these 1,000 people asked 47 other political questions that were reported on by either the Washington Post or Huffington Post. I suspect that if the omitted questions and answers painted Conservatives in a negative light then they certainly would have been included in the article. They can post the whole poll or stfu.

Click to shrink...

The only thing that is horse shit is your lack of understansing anything related to statistics.

 

[D65]

It's my belief that even if you disagree with someone it makes sense to be in a space where people who might disagree with you can voice their opinion. Political discourse is important in understanding the different view points and also curating a conversation where different viewpoints can grow from each other.

These opinions that may not be held by you still exist, and politically speaking they are hold by individuals who will vote for their beliefs when there is no further discussion.

I believe think there is a difference between being a piece of shit and a Republican, and even if it wasn't, it makes sense for that conversation to not be one sided.

 

[Heromanz]

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Additionally, the polls given to these 1,000 people asked 47 other political questions that were not reported on by either the Washington Post or Huffington Post. I suspect that if the omitted questions and answers painted Conservatives in a negative light then they certainly would have been included in the article. They can post the whole poll or stfu.

Click to shrink...

I don't think you know how polls work.

 

[RDreamer]

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Additionally, the polls given to these 1,000 people asked 47 other political questions that were not reported on by either the Washington Post or Huffington Post. I suspect that if the omitted questions and answers painted Conservatives in a negative light then they certainly would have been included in the article. They can post the whole poll or stfu.

Click to shrink...

Representative samples, how do they work? YouGov is a pretty decently accurate pollster.

And Washington Post did post the whole poll. You could use your eyes and click their link to read all questions. Articles tend to focus on one or two issues rather than shotgunning an entire poll at people because people care about headlines not statistics, generally. Otherwise we'd all be bookmarking YouGov and Public Policy Polling not Washington Post or CNN.

 

[BMatt07]

I don't think you know how polls work.

Click to shrink...

LOL.. enlighten me..

 

[phonicjoy]

LOL.. enlighten me..

Click to shrink...

Lol, take a statistics course

 

[Bandage]

It's my belief that even if you disagree with someone it makes sense to be in a space where people who might disagree with you can voice their opinion. Political discourse is important in understanding the different view points and also curating a conversation where different viewpoints can grow from each other.

These opinions that may not be held by you still exist, and politically speaking they are hold by individuals who will vote for their beliefs when there is no further discussion.

I believe think there is a difference between being a piece of shit and a Republican, and even if it wasn't, it makes sense for that conversation to not be one sided.

Click to shrink...

Accept that it is inherently one sided.
It's literally one side that believes in the culling of races versus a side that doesn't.
How do you have a conversation there?
"I believe we should put Mexicans in concentration camps!"
"Well, I don't."

There's no middle ground there. Absolutely none.

 

[NoName999]

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Additionally, the polls given to these 1,000 people asked 47 other political questions that were not reported on by either the Washington Post or Huffington Post. I suspect that if the omitted questions and answers painted Conservatives in a negative light then they certainly would have been included in the article. They can post the whole poll or stfu.

Click to shrink...

Take a fucking stats course

Yet another conservative who proves why conservatives aren't taken seriously.

 

[Spuck-]

This community is actually fairly old on average for a videogame forum. I probably represent the kind of member here that you're describing, and I'm 42.

Click to shrink...

38, and same

 

[Heromanz]

LOL.. enlighten me..

Click to shrink...

Did you ever take stats in high school and their college man?.

 

[NoName999]

Noticed how the conservative didn't come back after his poorly thought out drive by

 

[Wolfgunblood]

That stats self-own is pretty standard when debating conservatives. It makes political debate such an ordeal, conservatives have such a significant lack of understanding the basic concepts required.

 

[supremeplatypus]

You can defend socially liberal with right leaning economics like generally many centre-right parties in Europe for example, like Fredrik Reinfeldt's centre right government in Sweden who did socially liberal things like be pro-LGBT even though I hate right wing economics and think they are completely wrong and don't work in practice because they gut social protections and increase inequality. Right wing parties in English speaking countries tend to be considerably worse for some reason. As someone living in the UK the Conservatives on some matters, speaking of general party policy and not the many assholes which populate it are actually not that bad like on LGBT or women's rights. Porn blocking is objectively stupid though.

If you vote for UKIP or some other extreme right party like Sweden Democrats, Danish People's Party or AfD or are socially conservative I don't have time for them at all. Fuck those people. I don't tolerate the denial of basic human rights to others.

 

[Book One]

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Additionally, the polls given to these 1,000 people asked 47 other political questions that were not reported on by either the Washington Post or Huffington Post. I suspect that if the omitted questions and answers painted Conservatives in a negative light then they certainly would have been included in the article. They can post the whole poll or stfu.

Click to shrink...

you get stuff like this and then people wonder why lots of conservative 'view points' get shit on. It's not even a 'hey can someone explain how this works' type of post, it's just ignorant angry ranting with a dash of persecution complex. And it often happens a lot when the 'differing view point' shows up in a thread. I mean....what are you supposed to do with this?

 

[BMatt07]

Take a fucking stats course

Yet another conservative who proves why conservatives aren't taken seriously.

Click to shrink...

You put so much faith in polls, I bet that Hillary loss must have been a real shocker if you put so much credence in to the accuracy and validity of these polls. Keep clutching your pearls I suppose.

I am very familiar with representative sampling and how it works. I however do not believe that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately portray an entire country's voter base. I personally believe that as the sample gets bigger, the sample gets closer to true proportions.

There are many issues when it comes to representative sampling, as I'm sure you're aware. It was an online poll, well too bad 16% of Americans don't use the internet so the poll is weighted from the start. Online polls are also inherently less accurate than telephonic polling, however often used because they are easier and cheaper to conduct. I take online polls with a grain of salt.

 

[Thordinson]

Do you even read the polls you cite, or no?

The useless polls in which you cite, polled a grand total of 1,000 people. There were 62,984,828 Conservative voters in the 2016 Election. Transitively applying the thoughts of 1,000 random individuals on to a voter base of almost 63 million individuals is just disingenuous horse shit.

Click to shrink...

1000 is good enough to get a representation of 63 million people. In fact, 1068 is good enough for the entire population of the US with a 3% margin of error.

It's basic statistics.

You put so much faith in polls, I bet that Hillary loss must have been a real shocker if you put so much credence in to the accuracy and validity of these polls. Keep clutching your pearls I suppose.

I am very familiar with representative sampling and how it works. I however do not believe that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately portray an entire country's voter base. I personally believe that as the sample gets bigger, the sample gets closer to true proportions.

There are many issues when it comes to representative sampling, as I'm sure you're aware. It was an online poll, well too bad 16% of Americans don't use the internet so the poll is weighted from the start. Online polls are also inherently less accurate than telephonic polling, however often used because they are easier and cheaper to conduct. I take online polls with a grain of salt.

Click to shrink...

Remember polls are not concrete either. It's not like the opinions in polls are permanent. Hillary did win the popular vote which is what most polling said. They weren't wrong.

Your belief is counter to the way statistics works. You'd have to quadruple your sample size to cut the margin of error in half. But if it's already at 3%, it's just diminishing returns at that point.

One can argue about methodology and the type of polling but to say that you need large samples to get a feel for what a large number of people believe is false.

 

[phonicjoy]

You put so much faith in polls, I bet that Hillary loss must have been a real shocker if you put so much credence in to the accuracy and validity of these polls. Keep clutching your pearls I suppose.

I am very familiar with representative sampling and how it works. I however do not believe that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately portray an entire country's voter base. I personally believe that as the sample gets bigger, the sample gets closer to true proportions.

There are many issues when it comes to representative sampling, as I'm sure you're aware. It was an online poll, well too bad 16% of Americans don't use the internet so the poll is weighted from the start. Online polls are also inherently less accurate than telephonic polling, however often used because they are easier and cheaper to conduct. I take online polls with a grain of salt.

Click to shrink...

Sadly, statistics doesnt care about your "beliefs"

The first point is fucking ridiculous. Nobody with a statistics background was surprised.

And I see you are moving goalposts with your online poll argument. Just admit you are wrong and move on.

 

[NoName999]

Also another tactic that conservatives here like to use is deflecting.

I post a topic about Trump supporters claiming the n-word isn't racist. And we have a conservative basically crying fake news.

Like the concept of self-reflection is lost among conservatives if it even makes them look even an iota of bad.