[Julian658]

Perhaps I may have taken a wrong turn and ended up here.
I am a refugee from another forum that was hyperpartisan and embraced groupthink.
The worse part was that most of those moderating were biased themselves.

I was actually hoping to find a group that was interested in rational discussion with the purpose of mutual growth.

Being passionate and artful is entirely fine by me, but not to the point of misrepresenting the truth as a result of emotional needs.
Seen that in the other forum I escaped from.

So there is no misunderstanding, you seem perfectly nice.

There is a lot of tribalism here. And many are rather religious about their belief system. Anti-racism is seen as a religion.

I am a centrist and they assume I am a right winger. The echo chamber and the confirmation bias is also present-------good luck with that. I suggest you be gentle and give them room to make a comeback and learn something new.

[Stevex]

Yes, I'm a moderate, because it seems logical to me that neither the looney left nor the rabid right have all the answers and neither can hope to see their flawed notions come to fruition without forcible imposition.

O/T
It is good to see another moderate 'brother'. I was beginning to lose hope.
Is this forum politically balanced?
Are the mods very active here?

[Stevex]

There is a lot of tribalism here. And many are rather religious about their belief system. Anti-racism is seen as a religion.

I am a centrist and they assume I am a right winger. The echo chamber and the confirmation bias is also present-------good luck with that. I suggest you be gentle and give them room to make a comeback and learn something new.

I am not surprised. Most people tend to be tribal in nature.

I too am a centrist, and I too am considered a reich-winger by anyone on the left.
Why do they do that???

I am starting to wonder if there *is* a political *discussion* group nirvana out there. [sigh]
But I will stick around for a while.
This place can't be worse, in terms of bias, than the one I came from. lol

[Cartertonian]

Hi Steve

We haven't been introduced, so welcome to the forum.

For clarity you should know that in real life I'm a mental health clinician and academic, which is largely what influences both my opinions and my post content.

This binary thinking is a curiosity to me.
It is the sort of thing you might find in a debating team competition.
It is also something that would indicate a lack of intellectual capacity in some circumstances.

I avoid devil's advocacy. Some people don't understand the meaning of 'discussion'.
I hope people here prefer sharing ideas rather than being interested in point-scoring.
Tell me if I have come to the wrong place.

Firstly, I don't think you've come to the wrong place, but inevitably we have both contributors who like to share ideas and those who rely wholly or predominantly on point-scoring. From my personal perspective, having been here for thirteen years, I'd say the balance between the two here is probably better than most other places I've visited including this forum's UK sibling, where I am its most active moderator.

Secondly, whether knowingly or not you have hit the nail on the head of politics. Both US and UK politics are not coincidentally similar to debating team competitions - they were explicitly designed to be exactly like debating team competitions. Most other Western or Westernised countries have long since gone over to coalition governments that look to provide good governance through consensus and agreement but our two systems are still firmly wedded to the idea that 'winning' is all that matters. Thereafter, the winner then expects to be able to impose their will with impunity until the next round of elections. This polarised and adversarial mindset has then percolated down to the electorate and a dominant majority, irrespective of party allegiance, are unable to see it for what it is. To compound matters, our legal systems are built on the same adversarial principle. It's a common observation in the US, I believe, to say that if someone accused of a crime has 'a good lawyer', they are likely to be acquitted. That's because both our legal and political systems are not - or only peripherally - interested in the truth but rather are focussed on articulating the winning argument.

Many times, when I was a full-time lecturer, I organised debates for the students (relating to the subject matter of course) and laid out the rules of debate clearly to them. At the end, they were asked to vote for 'the best argument'. However, once that vote had been cast, they were then asked to vote for the argument they actually believed was right. The difference was often significant. The purpose was to illustrate to the students that just because an argument was well-constructed and compelling, that served as no guarantee that it was right.

But what about personal responsibility?
It is a decision to behave and think as an emotionally deranged barbarian rather than a rational, objective individual...

...regressing to a tribalistic mindset is a decision, surely.
It isn't inevitable.

Reprising my opening observation, as a mental health specialist I'd have to say that these decisions are not clear-cut. We have within us both our 'emotionally deranged barbarian' (primitive instincts and emotions located mostly in our limbic system - the older part of the brain) and our 'rational, objective individual', (higher, sentient thinking and reason) located mostly in our pre-frontal cortex. The balance between the two is key to our behaviour, but the influence each has on the other is not something over which we have much awareness or control.

It is good to see another moderate 'brother'. I was beginning to lose hope.
Is this forum politically balanced?
Are the mods very active here?

See my comment above. The mod team - of which I am one - are very good here and are drawn from across the notional (mythical?) political spectrum. They are all, however, very aware of their own biases and assiduously avoid allowing those biases to influence their moderation decisions.

[Julian658]

I am not surprised. Most people tend to be tribal in nature.

I too am a centrist, and I too am considered a reich-winger by anyone on the left.
Why do they do that???

I am starting to wonder if there *is* a political *discussion* group nirvana out there. [sigh]
But I will stick around for a while.
This place can't be worse, in terms of bias, than the one I came from. lol

You may enjoy this podcast between two centrists about the woke movement. It is rare to find conversations like this on You Tube.

[B0ycey]

Based on what I have heard/read, there seems to be quite a polarity between the voters.
The conservatives are fighting to retain some of the old values/traditions while the left is demanding social change.
Then you add the racial tensions to the mix.
As I said, I have never seen the likes in my life.

The irony of course is both parties policies remain identical barring a few tweeks here and there. Guns, health, education, taxation, Syria and basically anything that needs reform is merely retort at the moment and we see the status quo remain whoever is president. Which means the only difference you "I have never seen the likes in my life" is the perceived differences and not the actual differences in any case.

[MistyTiger]

My wife used to be like you. She would say; "I think so and so is is staring at us and giving us dirty kooks, OR think those people dislike us and they are talking about us". I would be right by her and I would have a totally different perception. Then I discovered she was always looking and checking to see what others around her were up to. Meanwhile I was in my own world and did not pay attention. The end result is: If you stare at someone they will probably stare back at you. Lastly, to know they are staring means you were staring first. No need to be so hyperaware.

Actually, you can feel people staring even if you are not staring. How do you think people know that they are being watched? Not everyone is very obvious about staring. If you are working in a hostile environment, you feel it. You can just tell if the office is hostile towards foreigners or if they don't care at all. My experience with corporate is that they do not care about your ethnicity. Smaller businesses tend to be more racist and more scared of strangers.

[Julian658]

Actually, you can feel people staring even if you are not staring. How do you think people know that they are being watched? Not everyone is very obvious about staring. If you are working in a hostile environment, you feel it. You can just tell if the office is hostile towards foreigners or if they don't care at all. My experience with corporate is that they do not care about your ethnicity. Smaller businesses tend to be more racist and more scared of strangers.

I hear you MT. Let me tell you something: If you are a bird watcher you are always seeing birds here and there. If you are not a bird watcher you do not know they are there. The same can be said about racism. If you are racism hyperaware you will see a lot of racism where there is none.

I have to respectfully say that despite your talents you may have a tad of low self esteem and care a lot about what others think. Interestingly self esteem can be high on a maid that cleans hotel rooms and very low on a Harvard graduate. It is one of those traits we have to live with. Go on a shell and ignore. I assure you most people highly respect you.

[MistyTiger]

I hear you MT. Let me tell you something: If you are a bird watcher you are always seeing birds here and there. If you are not a bird watcher you do not know they are there. The same can be said about racism. If you are racism hyperaware you will see a lot of racism where there is none.

I have to respectfully say that despite your talents you may have a tad of low self esteem and care a lot about what others think. Interestingly self esteem can be high on a maid that cleans hotel rooms and very low on a Harvard graduate. It is one of those traits we have to live with. Go on a shell and ignore. I assure you most people highly respect you.

How can you tell a detective to ignore people? Doesn't work. I read people because a lot of people are lying practically all the time. Most people are fake as shit. I do not take them seriously. I am not fake.

You do not know me well enough to say I have low self esteem. I don't care if people respect me. I just want to be left out of their drama. I do not play workplace politics.

[Julian658]

How can you tell a detective to ignore people? Doesn't work. I read people because a lot of people are lying practically all the time. Most people are fake as shit. I do not take them seriously. I am not fake.

You do not know me well enough to say I have low self esteem. I don't care if people respect me. I just want to be left out of their drama. I do not play workplace politics.

OK, I am sorry.
I will say that not all people are fake.
IN any event I am sorry.

[Tainari88]

Perhaps I may have taken a wrong turn and ended up here.
I am a refugee from another forum that was hyperpartisan and embraced groupthink.
The worse part was that most of those moderating were biased themselves.

I was actually hoping to find a group that was interested in rational discussion with the purpose of mutual growth.

Being passionate and artful is entirely fine by me, but not to the point of misrepresenting the truth as a result of emotional needs.
Seen that in the other forum I escaped from.

So there is no misunderstanding, you seem perfectly nice.

Stevex, all you have to do in PoFo to do well? Is have a strong idea of why you think politically the way you think. You then use evidence, data and information to support it. You remain respectful to your opponents. You reply in a timely manner and you allow yourself to not have an ego thing going where if you are challenged you have to be condescending. Lol.

If you stick to that plan all is well.

I am very honest. I tell people why I don't like their argumentation and I provide the reasons why. If they think that it is not true? It is up to them to disprove it.

The truth is that many people here are thinking that they must have the last word or be right and never admit to being invalid or wrong. Ego tripping people. You find those in all political philosophies.

I am an international socialist living in Mexico. I am not conservative, or libertarian or liberal. So most people who disagree with me are either conservative, libertarian or liberal. Or Fascists. They disagree with me as well. So? I tend to take the insults coming from those groups of people or individuals with a grain of salt. After all this is not a tea party where we come here to socialize and do small talk only and get along well with each other. Political discourse does become heated and volatile sometimes but it should be productive conflict and writing and not devolve into personal attacks and such.

I basically have rules about why I stop debating someone:

1. Never read what I write but they want to debate without reading what you say or write or they deny it and or never acknowledge what the argument is? That is bad. You dump them.

2. They want to discuss and debate but they don't know what the political philosophy is? For example, they never read a book on the foundations of fascism or socialism or libertarianism or anarchism and have no idea how to debate a fascist or a socialist, communist or even a conservative because they don't know anything about politics and they just want to imitate a talking head on the mainstream media.

4. Disrespectful young people or old people who want to insult you and not discuss because they lost a point and have an inability to be gracious in losing. Sore losers.

5. People who hate your political philosophy and all they want to do is stomp on you personally to get their hatred off on someone. I have run into some of those. One guy just up and said I needed to die and I needed to be stabbed to death. Moderators usually ban the nuts like that quickly here. So you are safe.

6. Mysoginists who come out of the woodwork because they got a beef with women in politics. For me that has occassionally been an issue. Again, most moderators if you report it? You are safe.

7. Racists who insult your ethnic group but they never acknowledge they are. It is up to moderators to determine what that person's meaning is with what they write. Some get dinged for Islamophobia, or some phobia against gays like Homophobics, etc. Regular human problems.

Stevex if you come here just to talk politics it is good. If you come here to be a troll? Try not to troll me. I get tired of trolls.

Apply your knowledge and you should be good!

[jimjam]

Here is a good example of a Fat Donald stooge regurgitating some dumb shit via the Republican hate machine to agitate the trump cult. God forbid we have a policy discussion on how to improve health care for all American citizens .

On Friday Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, told Fox News viewers that Joe Biden’s climate plans would force Americans to stop eating meat. On July 4, he declared, you’d have to “throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled brussels sprouts.”

"Plant based beer?" No way man. Real men drink beer brewed from beef.

Sheer stupidity provides fertile ground for hate.


Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, apparently believes that beer is made with meat.

Would you buy a used car from this ^ "economic adviser?"

[jimjam]

You do not know me well enough to say I have low self esteem.

Keep in mind, however, that there is a gifted sub set of individuals who possess a clairvoyant power that enables them to immediately grasp all aspects of another's personality and beliefs after hearing just a few words spoken by the person ….. .

[Julian658]

Here is a good example of a Fat Donald stooge regurgitating some dumb shit via the Republican hate machine to agitate the trump cult. God forbid we have a policy discussion on how to improve health care for all American citizens .

On Friday Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, told Fox News viewers that Joe Biden’s climate plans would force Americans to stop eating meat. On July 4, he declared, you’d have to “throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled brussels sprouts.”

"Plant based beer?" No way man. Real men drink beer brewed from beef.

Sheer stupidity provides fertile ground for hate.


Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, apparently believes that beer is made with meat.

Would you buy a used car from this ^ "economic adviser?"

OK, you are fighting the fringe right because it is easy to get a score. Hopefully, the fringe is just that. I could do the same and ridicule AOC and then there is no argument. All we have is an exchange of sarcastic useless remarks. I will admit that there is a redneck element that loves Trump just as there are SJW types that worship AOC and her comrades. So what? Who cares!

[Julian658]

Here is a good example of a Fat Donald stooge regurgitating some dumb shit via the Republican hate machine to agitate the trump cult. God forbid we have a policy discussion on how to improve health care for all American citizens .

On Friday Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, told Fox News viewers that Joe Biden’s climate plans would force Americans to stop eating meat. On July 4, he declared, you’d have to “throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled brussels sprouts.”

"Plant based beer?" No way man. Real men drink beer brewed from beef.

Sheer stupidity provides fertile ground for hate.


Larry Kudlow, who was Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, apparently believes that beer is made with meat.

Would you buy a used car from this ^ "economic adviser?"

OK, you are fighting the fringe right because it is easy to get a score. Hopefully, the fringe is just that. I could do the same and ridicule AOC and then there is no argument. All we have is an exchange of sarcastic useless remarks. I will admit that there is a redneck element that loves Trump just as there are SJW types that worship AOC and her comrades. So what? Who cares!

[jimjam]

It is not to be argued with that our democracy is weakening in the face of ominous polarization and a civil war of sorts, i.e. Whites vs any and all people of color. In order for our democratic republic to stand strong we must heal within: "A house divided against itself can not stand." Who among us would ever had envisioned that Lincoln's prescient words would hold true in the 21st Century.

Time to choose between E. Pluribus Unum and "What, me worry".

[Julian658]

It is not to be argued with that our democracy is weakening in the face of ominous polarization and a civil war of sorts, i.e. Whites vs any and all people of color. In order for our democratic republic to stand strong we must heal within: "A house divided against itself can not stand." Who among us would ever had envisioned that Lincoln's prescient words would hold true in the 21st Century.

Time to choose between E. Pluribus Unum and "What, me worry".

I would start by copying France. Over there everybody is French regardless of physical looks. It is considered poor taste to classify people according to skin color or ethnicity. It is not perfect, but it causes less division. IN the USA we have more racial classifications than the old South Africa and Nazi Germany. In Cuba everybody is Cuban, the so-called Cubanidad.

[colliric]

Now there are women who see men as the enemy and they also want to be like men in behavior. I am not interested in being like a man. I never will be. I am not a lesbian either and never was into that as well. My idea is that marriage should be about an equal partnership between two people in agreement about supporting each other and who complement each other.

So did Eva Peron. In fact that is why she hated the British Suffragettes, she viewed them as wishing "they had been born a man" rather than being proud to be a woman.

I found this view particularly inspirational in her autobiography, and it's one reason I think she is the greatest politician of the 20th century.

[Wellsy]

The irony of course is both parties policies remain identical barring a few tweeks here and there. Guns, health, education, taxation, Syria and basically anything that needs reform is merely retort at the moment and we see the status quo remain whoever is president. Which means the only difference you "I have never seen the likes in my life" is the perceived differences and not the actual differences in any case.

To emphasize an example of that identity but imagined divergence based on affiliation...
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Opinion-formation.pdf

‘Confirmation bias’ is a term attributed to the English psychologist Peter Wason, and expresses in psychological terms the fact known for centuries, that a person interprets every experience through the lens of their prior beliefs and is predisposed to interpret the experience so as to

confirm their existing beliefs and resist interpretations which threaten their existing commitments. This phenomenon is so well-known that it does not require proof, but I will illustrate the strength of this tendency with a study (Boven et al, 2018) of opinions on climate policy among Americans affiliated to either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Contrary to the beliefs of the majority of all participants, a great majority of the participants on both sides believed that climate change was real and action needed to be taken. When presented with two alternative policy statements each labelled either as being that of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, 2/3 of subjects opposed the policy labelled as that of the opposite party and 2/3 supported that of their own party irrespective of which policy document had been presented. People interpreted the policy document in line with the preconception produced by being told whose policy it was. US politics is an extreme case, but the effect is well-known and universal in its impact. However, little is gained by dwelling on the phenomenon. The point is to understand how a person forms such commitments, how opinions and beliefs come to be associated with a commitment and how opinions are formed and changed. There are a plethora of explanations for the failure of people to change opinions in the face of challenging experiences. This situation is a negative instance of the general process of forming or changing commitments in the face of ‘impossible’ situations, and adopting or modifying the range of opinions and beliefs that go along with that commitment.
...
The social structure is

however of considerable interest. This was illustrated graphically by the work of Boven et al cited above where we have seen opinions on almost every question sorted into almost mutually exclusive ‘tribes’, and where people’s very identity is tied up with membership of one tribe or the other. This despite the fact that there was far more overlap in individuals’ opinions than anyone believed.
This ‘tribalism’ is a societal pathology and is far from being a rational or necessary outcome of citizens forming commitments. The formation of ‘tribes’ has been called ‘politicisation’. To explain politicisation and the range of possible alternatives to tribalism, I will introduce the concept of ‘trust networks’ and in particular ‘expert-trust networks’.

By expert-trust network I mean a network of people, linked by relations in which a person A trusts that person B to give good advice with respect to question Q in which A evidently deems them have expertise. Each link is a expert-trust vector: A←B(Q). A church provides an expert-trust network for matters of faith; a university provides an expert-trust network for matters of science; a political party or movement provides an expert-trust network in matters of public political policy. ‘Politicisation’ means the collapsing of all networks into a single network of trust which leads to the phenomenon of tribalism, toxic to the rational and constructive formation of opinion and belief.

[Stevex]

Off Topic

Hi Steve

We haven't been introduced, so welcome to the forum.

For clarity you should know that in real life I'm a mental health clinician and academic, which is largely what influences both my opinions and my post content.

I didn't notice your signature.
Finally, finally, finally, a mod who is over 30, moderate, and knows what the hell he is are talking about!