tree frog said:

I hear you.

But unfortunately a lot political discourse even here isn't in good faith.  For example vicepope's ridiculous claim that the right isn't building concentration camps (Gaza and Alligator Alcatraz apparently aren't concentration camps...)

Folks like that will gaslight us all into the gas chambers.  And frankly, it's not in my best interest to keep investing time into a website that gives a platform to fascist propaganda.

---

Mickalopagus said:

idk... i kind of see a benefit to having the contrary takes.

---

Quote:

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

---

gww said:

Micka........
I believe in the possibilities of people having an epiphany but I also remember reading a view from a jewish person that survived the holocaust who wrote a piece about if the people that had seen it coming and they would have been louder it may have been stopped. 

They did not kill the jews day one and there were many steps to make it part of the legal system first.  At some point, the little steps added up to destruction for everyone.  I have no doubt that some had epiphanies too late. 

I agree with you on the trying to argue better and practice makes perfect. That only helps if it convinces those seeing the argument (that you are open to hear but arguing against) and dislike the other person for what he put forth.  In that case, better to not be put in the position to have to argue due the the other position being so out of line that it is rejected out of hand.  It is true that it may not be rejected and to me, that would seem to show your counter arguing is not working.  If being good at countering was working, you would not need to counter and the majority would already look down and ostracize the person doing the othering.  I say we are losing more then we should be and yes we have to discuss, but maybe we have to be a little more hard line.

They seem to be finding quite a few friends to me but they are still wrong and what we are doing now does not seem to be winning as easy as we should be.  I think we are winning in the end and hopefully with out the destruction that comes along from losing first but I am not sure by recent events.

---

Asante said:

---

gww said:

Mickalopagus
Look up lord binge's last 17 post from his profile and then tell me how you are going to argue in good faith with him/her?

---

Mickalopagus said:

gww said:

Micka........
I believe in the possibilities of people having an epiphany but I also remember reading a view from a jewish person that survived the holocaust who wrote a piece about if the people that had seen it coming and they would have been louder it may have been stopped. 

They did not kill the jews day one and there were many steps to make it part of the legal system first.  At some point, the little steps added up to destruction for everyone.  I have no doubt that some had epiphanies too late. 

I agree with you on the trying to argue better and practice makes perfect. That only helps if it convinces those seeing the argument (that you are open to hear but arguing against) and dislike the other person for what he put forth.  In that case, better to not be put in the position to have to argue due the the other position being so out of line that it is rejected out of hand.  It is true that it may not be rejected and to me, that would seem to show your counter arguing is not working.  If being good at countering was working, you would not need to counter and the majority would already look down and ostracize the person doing the othering.  I say we are losing more then we should be and yes we have to discuss, but maybe we have to be a little more hard line.

They seem to be finding quite a few friends to me but they are still wrong and what we are doing now does not seem to be winning as easy as we should be.  I think we are winning in the end and hopefully with out the destruction that comes along from losing first but I am not sure by recent events.

---

Thanks for the response. It is a fine line for me, but ultimately lands on the determination of my relationship with the people I am having the conversations with. We live in a crazy ass age of misdirection and fake everything. I think that people watching too much mind rot on social media xyz can slowly allow themselves to be influenced by shit that they wouldve rejected in an earlier version of themselves. After years of the behavior, I can totally understand how this might affect even an adult mind that should maybe have better resistance to all sorts of propaganda.

Of importance, I think these trends are only going to become more plentiful as developing tech allows people who want that kind of mayhem to create more and more fake propaganda with obscenely powerful AI as their tool... Thus, I think human to human interaction where these conversations can be had with well informed, evidence based structure will be such important a tool for everyone to have, if not already. Nobody wants to be caught off guard by all the shit were talking about IRL, and if its someone I care deeply about, I will not shun them, but try and talk through it with them.

---

Kryptos said:

Mickalopagus said:

gww said:

Micka........
I believe in the possibilities of people having an epiphany but I also remember reading a view from a jewish person that survived the holocaust who wrote a piece about if the people that had seen it coming and they would have been louder it may have been stopped. 

They did not kill the jews day one and there were many steps to make it part of the legal system first.  At some point, the little steps added up to destruction for everyone.  I have no doubt that some had epiphanies too late. 

I agree with you on the trying to argue better and practice makes perfect. That only helps if it convinces those seeing the argument (that you are open to hear but arguing against) and dislike the other person for what he put forth.  In that case, better to not be put in the position to have to argue due the the other position being so out of line that it is rejected out of hand.  It is true that it may not be rejected and to me, that would seem to show your counter arguing is not working.  If being good at countering was working, you would not need to counter and the majority would already look down and ostracize the person doing the othering.  I say we are losing more then we should be and yes we have to discuss, but maybe we have to be a little more hard line.

They seem to be finding quite a few friends to me but they are still wrong and what we are doing now does not seem to be winning as easy as we should be.  I think we are winning in the end and hopefully with out the destruction that comes along from losing first but I am not sure by recent events.

---

Thanks for the response. It is a fine line for me, but ultimately lands on the determination of my relationship with the people I am having the conversations with. We live in a crazy ass age of misdirection and fake everything. I think that people watching too much mind rot on social media xyz can slowly allow themselves to be influenced by shit that they wouldve rejected in an earlier version of themselves. After years of the behavior, I can totally understand how this might affect even an adult mind that should maybe have better resistance to all sorts of propaganda.

Of importance, I think these trends are only going to become more plentiful as developing tech allows people who want that kind of mayhem to create more and more fake propaganda with obscenely powerful AI as their tool... Thus, I think human to human interaction where these conversations can be had with well informed, evidence based structure will be such important a tool for everyone to have, if not already. Nobody wants to be caught off guard by all the shit were talking about IRL, and if its someone I care deeply about, I will not shun them, but try and talk through it with them.

---

I would add the caveat of "if it's not a waste of time".

I still associate with reasonable republicans. Ones willing to genuinely listen, discuss, and assess the situation. I have also cut several people out of my life because they were no longer capable of reasonable discussion. Those that must remain part of my life for other reasons, the relationships have become purely transactional.

Generally, I decide based on logical consistency. An easy example is gas prices. Those complaining about gas prices in 2022 who now refuse to acknowledge rising gas prices today...I do not consider reasonable. Or, those that have gone from "kill all pedophiles" to "Well, I always heard that if there's grass on the field...play ball!"

---

mushboy said:

at least shroomery has banned fascists and nazis.. after they break the rules

---

GenesisCorrupted said:

tree frog said:

I hear you.

But unfortunately a lot political discourse even here isn't in good faith.  For example vicepope's ridiculous claim that the right isn't building concentration camps (Gaza and Alligator Alcatraz apparently aren't concentration camps...)

Folks like that will gaslight us all into the gas chambers.  And frankly, it's not in my best interest to keep investing time into a website that gives a platform to fascist propaganda.

---

I legitimately think that a lot of their posting isn't genuine.

---