When the smallest doubt is treated as support of the other side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

In what way is that specific PP “exhibiting the behavior of a zealot”?

If you cannot acknowledge that this type of nuance-stifling, tribal, dogmatic behavior exists on either extreme. You are probably a zealot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has happened to me. It's maddening, it's alienating, and I don't know what to do about it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Clearly it was very progressive left wingers who coined the term "Defund the Police" to mean certain resources should be allocated to mental health and public safety professionals because you don't need someone who looks like they are ready for combat in the Sandbox approaching a person who might be publicly intoxicated or having mental distress; and certainly you can admit that training for police who shoot people in the back when they are running away or in their bedroom, is lacking?

But then it was the right who took the term and weaponized it to imply the left was fully anti- law enforcement all together, which of course is nonsense.

Same thing with "open borders" - of the borders were open, there wouldn't be record apprehensions and interdictions....at the border, now would there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Clearly it was very progressive left wingers who coined the term "Defund the Police" to mean certain resources should be allocated to mental health and public safety professionals because you don't need someone who looks like they are ready for combat in the Sandbox approaching a person who might be publicly intoxicated or having mental distress; and certainly you can admit that training for police who shoot people in the back when they are running away or in their bedroom, is lacking?

But then it was the right who took the term and weaponized it to imply the left was fully anti- law enforcement all together, which of course is nonsense.

Same thing with "open borders" - of the borders were open, there wouldn't be record apprehensions and interdictions....at the border, now would there?

Do you acknowledge that both sides engage in this kind of political chicanery?

If not, you are probably a zealot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

Except generally speaking, the MAGAs are being fed a bag of sh!t and they either know it and repeat it willfully, or they don't know it and are too stupid to realize it.

Cases in point:

Trump-Russia is a hoax. Not according to the Rubio led Senate Intel Committee Report or the Mueller Report, both republicans.
Pizzagate - a totally fabricate outrage about a child sex ring being run by democrats out of a non-existent basement.
Obama is a Muslim - a racist tripe led by the right to discredit a Christian president.
Obama isn't an American- another right wing lie meant to discredit an American president.
Seth Rich - Conspiracy theory fed by the right suggesting Hillary Clinton offed a staffer; a follow on to the Vince Foster conspiracy theory

I could go on, but you get the point. Steve Bannon said the goal was to flood everyone with piles of sh!t and the rubes would latch on and carry the water to distraction. Seems to be working.
The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Except generally speaking, the MAGAs are being fed a bag of sh!t and they either know it and repeat it willfully, or they don't know it and are too stupid to realize it.

Cases in point:

Trump-Russia is a hoax. Not according to the Rubio led Senate Intel Committee Report or the Mueller Report, both republicans.
Pizzagate - a totally fabricate outrage about a child sex ring being run by democrats out of a non-existent basement.
Obama is a Muslim - a racist tripe led by the right to discredit a Christian president.
Obama isn't an American- another right wing lie meant to discredit an American president.
Seth Rich - Conspiracy theory fed by the right suggesting Hillary Clinton offed a staffer; a follow on to the Vince Foster conspiracy theory

I could go on, but you get the point. Steve Bannon said the goal was to flood everyone with piles of sh!t and the rubes would latch on and carry the water to distraction. Seems to be working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Clearly it was very progressive left wingers who coined the term "Defund the Police" to mean certain resources should be allocated to mental health and public safety professionals because you don't need someone who looks like they are ready for combat in the Sandbox approaching a person who might be publicly intoxicated or having mental distress; and certainly you can admit that training for police who shoot people in the back when they are running away or in their bedroom, is lacking?

But then it was the right who took the term and weaponized it to imply the left was fully anti- law enforcement all together, which of course is nonsense.

Same thing with "open borders" - of the borders were open, there wouldn't be record apprehensions and interdictions....at the border, now would there?

While that is true you unfortunately left out the kicker...

The left responded by taking the bait, doubling down on the phrasing, and radicalizing themselves all in the name of winning an internet argument gor their perceived side.

Make no mistake, the right has done the same thing on dozens of occassions as well.

We see this dynamic occur on everything nowadays. Extremists push an issue to the forefront that most are not paying attention to. There is almost always a grain of truth behind what they are saying but it is exaggerated and twisted. The normies see the grain of truth and partially defend it. They are then criticized for their partial defense by the opposing zealots and the response is never introspection it's always defensiveness. That defensiveness then leads to self radicalization. Very few ever step back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Clearly it was very progressive left wingers who coined the term "Defund the Police" to mean certain resources should be allocated to mental health and public safety professionals because you don't need someone who looks like they are ready for combat in the Sandbox approaching a person who might be publicly intoxicated or having mental distress; and certainly you can admit that training for police who shoot people in the back when they are running away or in their bedroom, is lacking?

But then it was the right who took the term and weaponized it to imply the left was fully anti- law enforcement all together, which of course is nonsense.

Same thing with "open borders" - of the borders were open, there wouldn't be record apprehensions and interdictions....at the border, now would there?

Do you acknowledge that both sides engage in this kind of political chicanery?

If not, you are probably a zealot.

Sure, but the right is much better at it, clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Clearly it was very progressive left wingers who coined the term "Defund the Police" to mean certain resources should be allocated to mental health and public safety professionals because you don't need someone who looks like they are ready for combat in the Sandbox approaching a person who might be publicly intoxicated or having mental distress; and certainly you can admit that training for police who shoot people in the back when they are running away or in their bedroom, is lacking?

But then it was the right who took the term and weaponized it to imply the left was fully anti- law enforcement all together, which of course is nonsense.

Same thing with "open borders" - of the borders were open, there wouldn't be record apprehensions and interdictions....at the border, now would there?

Do you acknowledge that both sides engage in this kind of political chicanery?

If not, you are probably a zealot.

Sure, but the right is much better at it, clearly.

Funny, the right say the same thing about the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Secular religion? Like worshipping a politician or political party?

Not necessarily, though it could be. Fervent, bordering on religiously zealous, adherence to a cause, belief or person.

To take it out of a political context, the increase in celebrity stan culture is an example. BTS Army, Swifties, Sussex Squad, BeyHive etc.

Yup.

Trump is a religion for his hardcore MAGA followers. They speak about him as if he's the messiah and a prophet. It's very similar to fervent religious adherents.

Religion? Then we have DEI, Climate Change and Woke. You can't even see it, can you?

These examples are two sides of the same coin. Same thing, but one side blindly idolizes Trump, the other blindly follows DEI/social justice/equity nonsense. Blind belief in these competing ideologies gives them a sense of belonging, direction, and purpose that would have previously been filled by religion.

You wouldn't think the equity stuff was nonsense if you were one of the people on the short end of the stick.

You wouldn't think of MAGA as a cult if you were one of the people trying to save America from ruin.

Ah, but here is the rub. MAGA are the ones who staged a coup. After that, you can complain about the left and their policies until the cows come home. No one who actually loves their country tries to overturn an election in a violent manner, particularly now, in hindsight, when we see the planners and plotters admitting it was all a lie. Shocking that you somehow still think it was a fake election and that the coup plotters are still patriots.

Yawn. You are trying to make this some competition and are missing the point. Still stuck of the belief rather than the behavior

No one who truly believes in justice, equity and inclusion would engage in massive destruction and looting of small businesses (many of which were owned by minorities). We could do this all day. You're just so caught in your bubble, you can't see past your own "righteousness".

Do you take pamphlets with you when you proslytize?

And you are missing the point. The people protesting Floyd's death were peaceful. There is evidence, based on charges, that the deaths and rioting that took place were instigated by right wingers. You are so caught up in your bubble, you didn't know that. I posted links already in this thread and you have chosen to ignore them.

The RWNJ you’re going back and forth with is too far gone (or too well paid). All the proof in the world can’t convince someone whose sense of self is bound up in his victimhood like his is.

Use of this term is a telltale sign that you are probably in a bubble. So far gone, indeed.

Prove the bubble wrong. Prove that you aren't a nutjob. Give us credible citations of some big deep state antifa scheme.

You are completely missing the point. The whole invocation of J6 is a non-sequitur anyway.

As if differing degrees of a particular behavior negates the existence of the same behavior for the other side. No; not how it works.

Not at all missing the point. J6 is a perfect illustration. There's position A, that Trump got right wingers riled up with his lies that the election was stolen from him, along with floating the crazy idea that they result of Trump's loss could be overturned, and they stormed the Capitol as a result. There's probably a literal million data points that point to this. And then there's position B, that none of that happened, that instead somehow it was all a false flag by the "deep state" and anarchocommunists designed to make Trump and the right wing look bad. And, there's hardly any evidence at all to support this, and what little weak nonsense they have to point at, has either been repeatedly debunked, has been twisted and contorted beyond recognition (such as Epps), or was outright fabricated and circulated on social media.

Yup, still missing the point. And keying on incident as if it is determinative of the entire phenomenon. Next you are going to tell me it was actually Republicans who initiated the "Defund the Police" mantra :roll: .

You are lost in the sauce, my friend.

Actually, the real point here is "why do we get called trolls for posting x talking point" - as if x talking point were legitimate doubt - and the answer to that is typically because x talking point was engineered for you by by a professional troll who is intentionally trying to sow doubt so as to manipulate people.

OP.
This is exhibit A of what I am talking about. Doubt is the ultimate sin. You must be brainwashed by trolls!
I mean, this is indeed 1984.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

What stops them from trying to deny admission, emolument, or other privileges to someone who says that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

OP. This is another typical example. I say something about A and mention B in passing.
Then suddenly my goal was always to discredit B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

OP here. This is part of it. I’ll say that the expression of sympathy to the innocent victims is allowed, however nothing more is. If I say that maybe it should be easier to deliver aid - I am the enemy. If so much as mention the settlements - I am the enemy.
Next, take the Ukrainian conflict. There is a number of Russians who are suffering through no fault of their own, yet it is bad form to express sympathy for them. Saying that Ukraine has a history of corruption is also bad form.
All right, now let’s look at covid. One can’t say that the businesses or schools were only closed until there was no more money/political will to keep them closed. They are labeled an old lady killer.
BLM? Pointing out that the victim had criminal history makes you a racist.
All in all, One should not question The Good Guy!

Off topic...other than those in the Russian military, who are the Russians suffering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

It sounds like you are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Israel was attacked by Hamas and attacked back, but if anyone expresses concern for the Palestinians (not Hamas), then you are labeled and a Hamas sympathizer. I get it. Like a PP said, we are now supporting loyalties, and there is no more critical thinking allowed. It’s sad.

Or if you criticize Netanyahu's settler policies you are called an antisemite.

I don't think people can legitimately attack when you cite specifics. They can try, but it's foolish.

The problem is that many people are unable to cite specifics. The example above of J6 denial shows that. Trump supporters say things like "deep state" but lack specific evidence and end up looking like fools.

Basically, people need to do better. But most people can either barely scratch the surface of a topic or are so far down a rabbit hole of delusions and fabrications that there's nothing coherent to be had from it.

The problem is you think this delusional behavior runs one way. Progressives have looked like idiots trying to walk back a number of issues on which they were demanding unquestioned fealty from all.

The likes of you cannot see this, because you are drowning in your own righteousness.

YOU are the problem.

Ahh finally there we have it. The whole intent of this thread was to try and find some way to smear the left.

Glad that's established and out in the open now.

Why are you getting defensive?

This is about behavior, not ideology or affiliation. You are exhibiting the behavior of a zealot and you are blind to it. You are the the cousin of the MAGA you so despise.

Sure, Mr. Zealous and Righteous, Mr. My Point Is The Only Relevant Thing. Whatever you say. Aye aye, Capitano.

Take it up with the OP, or start a new thread about your pet obsessions, Comrade.

"Comrade?" Sounds like something an obsessive person would say.

Look at how the PP has projected some kind of delusional image of anyone who disagrees with them of being a communist by calling them "comrade." Proved the OP's point to a T.

Another funny thing about zealots is they have no sense of humor and can't recognize sarcasm. If the shoe fits...

DP.
It’s gaslighting
“But I was joking; can’t you take a joke?!”
Classic