Right-wing forums and homosexuality

[NickCole]

You're turning into this into a black-and-white thing. Some people do this a little bit or very rarely, some do it a lot, and some are in between. Sometimes it's not really problematic or negative for society, but in the case of clinging to old, bigoted beliefs about homosexuality, it's awful.

Nope, you presented it as a black and white thing and JockBoy87 turned it into an absolutely everybody thing.

I pointed out that human personalities and character traits vary widely and by no means is absolutely everybody stubbornly defensive about their beliefs. It's fine for you and JockBoy87 to characterize your own stubborn defensiveness about your beliefs but it ain't everybody.

 

[NickCole]

Nick, do you realize that you, yourself, are clinging on to an old belief?

Nick, you and I got beat up black and blue in the Political Forums for supporting Hillary, but all of that's over with. I think it's time to move on. I'm not sure why you hang on to your extreme dislike of Obama, but I submit to you that he was the lesser of two evils and a helluva lot better than McCain (and God Forbid,
Palin) would have been.

My dislike of Obama is rooted as much in events of today and during the past year as in the opinion I formulated during the Primaries.

He's President and when I comment on him it's about what's currently going on. You suggest it's time to move on but when I criticize his making a backroom deal with PhRMA or failing to fight for the public option and the crummy health care reform that resulted, that's about current events. It's not time to move on from current events. They're still happening. And he'll be President for at least three more years so what he does today is part of what informs the choices he'll make and the direction our nation will go in the next three years. It's not time to move on from that.

 

[KTheLibra]

So you demonstrate how we deserve respect by shitting on their beliefs?

That's a tactic called "getting out the vote for the other side".


I prefer the tactic of sitting on a rock in the middle of the river with a bottle of SkinnyDip beer, wearing just my rainbow hex-nut choker and NRA hat, with my guitar and singing songs about Jesus.

That totally confuses them and has provided some openings for actually productive conversations. Your little game just fuels hate, because it is hate.

Well, there are some of those people who will never change. You can reason with them all you like and be as respectful and dignified as you can and talk to them till you're blue in the face, but they will still tell you that you're an evil pervert who deserves to be tortured and executed. So I understand your point totally, but sometimes my only source of comfort when dealing with such people is to ridicule them. Again, it's very fun.

 

[Nomenclature]

And i'm sure that right-wing forums don't like what we say on gay forums. Whatever.

 

[Kulindahr]

(and God Forbid, Palin)

I was really hoping to sleep tonight with some nice, pleasant dreams, and you had to throw out that nightmare!

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, there are some of those people who will never change. You can reason with them all you like and be as respectful and dignified as you can and talk to them till you're blue in the face, but they will still tell you that you're an evil pervert who deserves to be tortured and executed. So I understand your point totally, but sometimes my only source of comfort when dealing with such people is to ridicule them. Again, it's very fun.

As the crime boss said to his son, just be sure there aren't any witnesses.

Do you ever pat them on the head and tell them they'll understand once they grow up?

 

[Kulindahr]

At least we didn't get Palin. (sorry, Kulindahr. )

This is your fault!

I dreamed I was in a house that's a cross between the one I grew up in and my mom's house we're trying to sell. My dog started barking and a whole side of the house fell off. I went running out and there sitting on the porch with a rifle on her lap in a rocking chair was Sarah Palin. She pointed and said "You can see Russia from here." Then the other side of the house fell off, leaving the middle teetering these.

 

[NickCole]

Yeah, I know, NickCole, so far he's been lousy...but he's the best we have.

It's fascinating how Obama manages to manipulate people's thinking even when they're displeased with his results.

"He's the best we have" is a thought relevant during an election campaign (which his SOTU, Tampa and yesterday's performance clearly indicate he's doing), not the middle of a Presidency. He's not the best we have or the worst we have, he's just what we have. Saying he's the best we have implies he's still running against McCain; he is not. It's not only inaccurate, it praises him in a way his performance as President hasn't earned and doesn't deserve, creating a false impression of "best." Great way to get people thinking you're "the best" when the truth is you've been lousy.

At least we didn't get Palin. (sorry, Kulindahr. )

Same thing as above but even more delusional.

You reference her compared to Obama as if she were the alternate option. She was not. Sarah Palin was not the Presidential candidate who ran against Barack Obama, and since McCain is still alive then saying "at least we didn't get Palin" is utterly senseless.

 

[NickCole]

NickCole, you are no saint, ok?

Realized I wasn't a saint long before you were born. In fact I pinpoint the realization to a crazy party in 1977, my sister's boyfriend and I kissing after he'd slipped into my bed, while from downstairs Billy Joel's new record blared, "sinners are much more fun." No, I definately am no saint.

Yes, you are guilty of the same, as is everyone.

No, JockBoy87, everyone is not guilty of the same.

 

[NickCole]

Yes, NickCole, they are.

Okay then we've identified a big difference between your perception of the world and mine, or the way you think and the way I think.

You believe everybody is "guilty" (your word) of stubbornness, reluctance and defensive thinking about their beliefs.

And I believe human beings have a wide range of response mechanisms, and that while some are stubbornly defensive about their beliefs many others are not.

 

[NickCole]

Everybody holds cognitive biases and defends them vigorously.

Rewording it in an attempt to broaden and even slightly change what you're saying after you've staunchly insisted the original is your position isn't exactly kosher.

But this one is wrong as well.

Not everybody defends their biases vigorously.

 

[NickCole]

Didn't change what I said at all.

Stubbornness is the result of that, so actually I was being more specific, not broader.

Yes, everybody defends their cognitive biases vigorously otherwise they wouldn't be cognitive biases. If you are open to other possibilities, it isn't a bias.

Wow, like Obama you seem to think if you repeat something that's not true boldly enough that'll make it true.

There's no question you changed what you said.

Cognitive bias is a tendency to make an error in judgment as a result of one's thought process. A person's beliefs are not necessarily an error in judgment, so replacing "beliefs" with "cognitive bias" changes what you said. Also vigorously defending something is not the same as stubborn defensiveness.

I'll just post the original, yours and mine, here, and let it stand.

Originally Posted by RazorzEdge88

There's a natural psychological tendency in our society for stubbornness. There's a cultural climate of reluctance and defensive thinking in America and much of the world. It's easier for most to cling to their own beliefs than admit they are wrong. You'll find that this pervades a host of issues in our society, like the whole war on drugs. It's easier to spout platitudes and get self-righteously chastise marijuana users than admit that it's a relatively harmless vice.

It's a psychological self-defense mechanism at work. People try to preserve their credibility by adhering to their beliefs while losing sight of the fact that they might be able to gain credibility by being more open-minded.

JockBoy87's response: Everybody, and I mean absolutely everybody, is guilty of that on some level.

My response was:

That's not true.

There is no human personality trait or response, and certainly not stubbornness and self-defensiveness about one's beliefs, that "everybody absolutely everybody" is guilty of.

I stand by what I said.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's fascinating how Obama manages to manipulate people's thinking even when they're displeased with his results.

"He's the best we have" is a thought relevant during an election campaign (which his SOTU, Tampa and yesterday's performance clearly indicate he's doing), not the middle of a Presidency. He's not the best we have or the worst we have, he's just what we have. Saying he's the best we have implies he's still running against McCain; he is not. It's not only inaccurate, it praises him in a way his performance as President hasn't earned and doesn't deserve, creating a false impression of "best." Great way to get people thinking you're "the best" when the truth is you've been lousy.

That's a reasonable point.

OTOH, the rest arises only out of a narrow focus that just may not be what other people are into. "He's the best we have" can also be a cry of despair, or of grumbling or bitter recognition of facts. It doesn't imply anything about campaigns, and it doesn't praise him -- in fact I've never heard that particular phrase used in a political context as praise.

Idioms do not precisely conform to grammatical expectations, and in this context, "best" does not even necessarily mean it's in the realm of the good. So what you're doing there is playing word games, twisting an idiom for no other reason than to manufacture a disagreement.

Same thing as above but even more delusional.

You reference her compared to Obama as if she were the alternate option. She was not. Sarah Palin was not the Presidential candidate who ran against Barack Obama, and since McCain is still alive then saying "at least we didn't get Palin" is utterly senseless.

Are you even reading the thread? Or are you just picking out things to criticize?

This is why people see you as bitter and negative and mean: you make little exchanges between other people into monstrous issues. Everything has to conform to your near, tidy, strict, regimented, lockstep scheme of things or you rip it apart. You treat us like machines who have no foibles, not idiomatic expressions, no humor, not even any hearts. It's no wonder people think you're Republican, because the way you deal with people and respond to us is very much like that of another candidate "we didn't get" even though we elected his boss.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, JockBoy87, everyone is not guilty of the same.

Yes, NickCole, they are.

I'd say that this summed the situation up:

You're turning into this into a black-and-white thing. Some people do this a little bit or very rarely, some do it a lot, and some are in between. Sometimes it's not really problematic or negative for society, but in the case of clinging to old, bigoted beliefs about homosexuality, it's awful.

Now would you two stop sniping at each other?

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay then we've identified a big difference between your perception of the world and mine, or the way you think and the way I think.

You believe everybody is "guilty" (your word) of stubbornness, reluctance and defensive thinking about their beliefs.

And I believe human beings have a wide range of response mechanisms, and that while some are stubbornly defensive about their beliefs many others are not.

Everybody holds cognitive biases and defends them vigorously.

You don't have to know you have them or acknowledge that you have them, or even know or acknowledge that you are stubborn in trying to resolve said subconsciously-held cognitive biases. But everyone does have them.

Nick, you keep casting this in derogatory, loaded terms, while JockBoy is trying to keep it on an analytical level. And then you tossed off the comment RazorEdge gave as of no worth, either.

I have yet to see you in this conversation do anything but see absolutely everything anyone else has to say in a negative light. In so doing, you look like a bitter old fool.

Razor has the right of it, especially when you take the word "cling", which you've all used. People do cling to their beliefs, all people -- anyone who didn't would be clinically insane.

 

[Kulindahr]

Manipulated my thinking? HAH! You don't know me very well. I'm a pinko-Commie with some incongruent right-wing sentiment thrown somewhere in the blender.

We'll have it your way: we'll focus on the present.

We have two ways we can split our loyalties, Nick Cole. We can support an inexperienced, yet brilliant President who supports our ideals, or we can support Republicans in Congress who does not.

Which'll it be?

Although Obama has really dropped the ball, I think he deserves a second chance.

Not that we really have any choice at this point but to give him a second chance. To refurbish and modify a phrase used earlier, he's all we've got.

 

[archive]

This is why people see you as bitter and negative and mean: you make little exchanges between other people into monstrous issues. Everything has to conform to your near, tidy, strict, regimented, lockstep scheme of things or you rip it apart. You treat us like machines who have no foibles, not idiomatic expressions, no humor, not even any hearts. It's no wonder people think you're Republican, because the way you deal with people and respond to us is very much like that of another candidate "we didn't get" even though we elected his boss.

maybe he'll listen to you.....lol.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, it seems like Nick Cole is just damn determined to be unhappy with Obama.

I think that in these troubled times that that's the wrong attitude to take.

Looks to me more like he's just determined to be unhappy and try to make the rest of us miserable, too.

I'm unhappy enough with Obama that if he got in range I'd probably spit on him and tell him that's what he's doing to the American people. But I don't go around trashing on anyone who has anything good to say about the man. Although the hype has him as a wind moving an old Spanish treasure galleon while he's really a little breeze pushing a catamaran, at least he's moving something.

 

[NickCole]

We have two ways we can split our loyalties, Nick Cole. We can support an inexperienced, yet brilliant President who supports our ideals, or we can support Republicans in Congress who does not.

Which'll it be?

Again you show how easily you allow your thinking to be manipulated.

That's a false dichotomy that the two major parties have manipulated you into believing.

I choose a third way.

Although Obama has really dropped the ball, I think he deserves a second chance.

He'll get as many chances as three more or seven more years, and his powers of seduction and his loyalist's susceptibility allow, which will be more than two.

But that's totally beside the point.

 

[NickCole]

Kulindahr, it seems like Nick Cole is just damn determined to be unhappy with Obama.

That's funny because it sounds like criticism of someone bellyaching about a President who's doing a good job and yet you, yourself, describe his performance as lousy.

Nobody has to be "damn determined to be unhappy with Obama." Just have to be paying attention and care about our country.

I think that in these troubled times that that's the wrong attitude to take.

I think in these troubled times it's irresponsible to let Obama get away with failing us. I think in these troubled times it's wrong to actually cheer him for assinine successes like a smackdown of Republicans as if adding to animosity is good for our nation.

I think the wrong attitude is complacency and compliance. I think the right attitude is resistance and outrage. I think the right attitude is being mad as hell.