All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[The Cool Thatguy]

I wonder what's going to happen with people that can't pay their mortgage. Will the bank kick them out or let them stay and just add interest to the loan.

Haha!

Like they can't do both.

[Adam Allen]

This prime example of the Left cannibalizing their own supporters is why I'm centrist. Your "anybody who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time is the enemy" approach overshoots the rational bounds of criticism and is part of the problem when it comes to our deeply polarized society.

I don't know, maybe he sees you as the enemy, but I thought he was just disagreeing with you. You can disagree with someone, without considering them your enemy.

I fail to see how having a problem with cancel culture/the far-left's hypersensitivity when it comes to identity politics and political correctness automatically makes me right-wing.

And can't speak for him either, but I'd say the issue here is that by referencing a "hypersensitivity when it comes to identity politics", you seem to be dismissing more than just far-left people. A good chunk of the whole Dem establishment is concerned with "identity politics".

In regard to cognitive dissonance, I was referring to people being incapable of defining a person by more than just one thing. To use the Rowling example again: are her opinions on the transgender debate unpopular/bad/harmful/etc? The consensus seems to be "yes." But should my feelings for and experience of the Harry Potter books be fundamentally changed because of the author's opinions? No. And anyone claiming otherwise needs to seek counseling, because that lack of cognitive dissonance is unhealthy. I read one report of a distressed fan retroactively damning the Potter books in the wake of Rowling's remarks about transfolk because the books themselves feature no trans characters and therefore the books promote trans-erasure. By that logic, most stories in existence practice trans-erasure and are harmful. It's nonsense.

The point I'm trying to make with the Trump comparison is that, now that Rowling has said some stuff that's upset people, there are those who will only ever see her as a TRANSPHOBE!!! and they'll trash her books and boycott any future books and continue to harass her on social media because Rowling will forever be defined by that one thing for them. I was comparing with Trump not to simply say she's better than Trump (which she certainly is), but to illustrate that, unlike Trump, Rowling also has a lot of redeeming qualities. Trump will only ever be defined negatively because, well, he has no redeemable qualities and he's never done any good for the world. But cancel culture treats both Trump and Rowling like they're equally bad, though they're not really on the same level.

Another example from popular culture is Mel Gibson. Most likely a racist, anti-Semite, alcoholic, and all-around unpleasant man in his personal life. He was blacklisted, people boycotted his films, etc. But I still enjoy the hell out of the silly romp that is Braveheart. Or Michael Crichton? Dude had some borderline racist views of the Japanese and is likely on the wrong side of the climate change debate. But he also gave us Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park demands all our love. Cognitive dissonance is the ability to separate one's feelings for the artist from their feelings for the art.

And again, I'm all for calling people out on outrageous/negative/wrong opinions and beliefs, but there's got to be some limits/moderations/considerations involved. It's impossible for everyone to agree with everyone else about everything. We're never going to reach that level of conformity and I think anybody that wants to is crazy. And my problem with cancel culture is that it treats every offense, no matter how major or how minor, the same and it treats every offender, whether it's the president of the United States or a nobody on a comic book forums thread, the same. There needs to be distinctions.

I don't find these to be "questionable" criticisms of the Left (some of the reactions I've gotten here are proving my point). And cancel culture isn't solely a Left issue, either, but in the example of cancel culture going after Rowling, it seems to be driven primarily by the left. As a centrist, I don't consider myself to be magically better than either left or right. I have way more left-leaning views than I do right-leaning views. But most if not all of my views are moderate rather than extreme, hence, "centrist."

So yeah, I meant that I kind questioned the validity of the left-wing positions you'd described, but you are right, that is not really what "questionable" means. In a similar vein though, I don't think "cognitive dissonance" is the right term for what you're describing. The ability to separate one's feelings for the artist from their feelings for the art ... compartmentalization might be a closer term for that?

Anyway, semantics aside ... thing is, I think we all have to decide for ourselves who we want to "cancel" or not. It is fine if you can still enjoy Harry Potter. I'm not going to call anyone who can't crazy for it, though. I guess I would agree, nobody should say that you are a bad person if you still like her books ... but again, I wouldn't fault them for saying they, themselves, can't enjoy them anymore, or for saying they think she's a horrible person. Those people are entitled to their opinion, just as you are to yours. Does not mean they're crazy though, or "loony left" or whatever. You know, we all feel strongly about different things.

Myself, I was never a Harry Potter fan in the first place, so it's relatively easy for me to be indifferent about anything JK Rowling says. Can't say I would be, if I had passionately loved the books before, though. But, take your example of Mel Gibson. Also personally was never a fan of Braveheart, but I liked some of his other movies. Have to admit I would enjoy them less, these days. It's not that I think Mel Gibson is as bad a person as Trump, mind you -- just that it's harder for me to see the character instead of the actor, at this point.

I agree it is impossible that everyone will ever agree on everything, so there needs to be some limit on how harshly we criticize. I would say that anybody who is more upset about JK Rowling than President Trump should perhaps re-examine their priorities ... but you know, even there, I hesitate because even though it seems to me as if that would be a case of having your priorities out of order ... the reality is that we all get to decide for ourselves what we consider the most important things, and how passionate we should be about them.

You know, somebody needs to have trans rights as their highest priority, because it's so far down the list, for most people. And for someone who does have trans rights as their biggest priority -- how can I know that Rowling is not, in fact, more harmful than Trump? Because the truth is, that's just not a consideration I would have even had, before this conversation.

[Hellion]

I would judge you as a centrist or not based on you views on issues like abortion, climate change, tax cuts, healthcare and a few more. Also by who you voted for.

I'm pro-choice. I'd prefer to add, "only in cases of rape/incest or if the mother's life is at risk," but I grew up in an area where teenage girls would get abortions because they were never taught about and/or didn't have access to birth control (my town was ride or die with abstinence-only). And I hesitate to deny them abortions because in several cases it was a given that they'd be terrible parents.

I'm wholeheartedly pro-science, so yes, I acknowledge climate change and that mankind is a major contributor to it. But I'm also a pessimist; I don't think there's really any meaningful impact we can have to curb environmental harm unless we have a mass culling of the human population. That's the most extreme opinion I have.

I'm not in favor of cutting taxes for the wealthy. Trickle-down economics is a joke.

I think healthcare should be accessible to everyone, but I am not in favor of forcing people to have it. I disliked the individual mandate of the ACA, and it impacted me negatively at a time in my life where I was too poor to afford and to young to really need it.

I support gay marriage.

I'm in favor of the death penalty. I'm aware of its burden on the taxpayer and the possibility of legal mistakes that can lead to an innocent man being sentenced to death, but I do believe that in the case of certain crimes, the committer of said crimes doesn't deserve to continue living (for more context, Joseph Duncan III was a big deal in my neck of the woods and that fucker's still breathing).

I was also fine with the Patriot Act. I'm well-aware of the many, many issues it raised and people's objections to it, but I also think I was ahead of the curve in realizing/accepting that the government was spying on us anyway and would continue to do so and now does so with the aid of tech industries/social media, so I personally was never bothered by it. I donate money to Sinn Fein annually, and I've never been arrested or had my property confiscated or been banned from travel to Ireland, so I reckon I'm not considered a threat.

I'm also a Catholic, but a more liberal-minded one. I think Pope Francis is on the whole a good thing and I practice goodwill and love that Jesus taught rather than the "burn the filthy sinners" approach embraced by an unfortunate number of Christians.

As for who I voted for...In terms of presidential elections, I've voted Democrat in 2012, 2016 and now. I wasn't eligible to vote in 2008, but I followed the election cycle and could've lived with either outcome until McCain announced Palin as his running mate. From then on, I was Team Obama. In 2012, I could have lived with Romney but ultimately voted Obama. In 2016 and 2020 there was no hesitation. I voted for the only credible and competent candidates on the ticket. In terms of Montana races, in the past I'd say I voted for Democrats and Republicans evenly. But in recent years, it's gotten hard to vote for any Republican politician here when most publicly embrace Trumpism.

So do I make the cut for "centrist" or not?

[Kirby101]

Sounds centrist to me.

[Hellion]

I don't know, maybe he sees you as the enemy, but I thought he was just disagreeing with you. You can disagree with someone, without considering them your enemy.

There are certainly polite ways to disagree with someone. It seems more like he was heaping scorn, and its an attitude I've noticed he has when anybody critiques the left, so I'm assuming he sees me as the enemy. Who knows? If the rudeness is entirely perceived on my end, then I apologize.

And can't speak for him either, but I'd say the issue here is that by referencing a "hypersensitivity when it comes to identity politics", you seem to be dismissing more than just far-left people. A good chunk of the whole Dem establishment is concerned with "identity politics".

That is a fair point. I tend to generalize, and it gets me into trouble. Most of the people I associate with (friends, family, coworkers, etc) I would consider to be more moderate Democrats. For example, with the trans rights debate/movement/what-have-you, all of them, myself included, support transfolk. But pretty much all of us have trouble accepting the statement that "gender is a social construct." Now, we can believe that gender roles are a social construct, absolutely, but as science believers, we believe that gender is biological. I confess I'm not enlightened enough to know why transfolk disagree with that, but I do think a large part of what informs Rowling's views on the trans movement is that she feels that by claiming gender is a social construct, it devalues cisgender women. I can understand where she's coming from, regardless of whether or not I agree with her. That was a long-winded example, but basically I tend to single out the far left for criticism rather than the left as a whole just because most of the moderate lefties I know have the same concerns about the far left.

So yeah, I meant that I kind questioned the validity of the left-wing positions you'd described, but you are right, that is not really what "questionable" means. In a similar vein though, I don't think "cognitive dissonance" is the right term for what you're describing. The ability to separate one's feelings for the artist from their feelings for the art ... compartmentalization might be a closer term for that?

Anyway, semantics aside ... thing is, I think we all have to decide for ourselves who we want to "cancel" or not. It is fine if you can still enjoy Harry Potter. I'm not going to call anyone who can't crazy for it, though. I guess I would agree, nobody should say that you are a bad person if you still like her books ... but again, I wouldn't fault them for saying they, themselves, can't enjoy them anymore, or for saying they think she's a horrible person. Those people are entitled to their opinion, just as you are to yours. Does not mean they're crazy though, or "loony left" or whatever. You know, we all feel strongly about different things.

Myself, I was never a Harry Potter fan in the first place, so it's relatively easy for me to be indifferent about anything JK Rowling says. Can't say I would be, if I had passionately loved the books before, though. But, take your example of Mel Gibson. Also personally was never a fan of Braveheart, but I liked some of his other movies. Have to admit I would enjoy them less, these days. It's not that I think Mel Gibson is as bad a person as Trump, mind you -- just that it's harder for me to see the character instead of the actor, at this point.

I agree it is impossible that everyone will ever agree on everything, so there needs to be some limit on how harshly we criticize. I would say that anybody who is more upset about JK Rowling than President Trump should perhaps re-examine their priorities ... but you know, even there, I hesitate because even though it seems to me as if that would be a case of having your priorities out of order ... the reality is that we all get to decide for ourselves what we consider the most important things, and how passionate we should be about them.

You know, somebody needs to have trans rights as their highest priority, because it's so far down the list, for most people. And for someone who does have trans rights as their biggest priority -- how can I know that Rowling is not, in fact, more harmful than Trump? Because the truth is, that's just not a consideration I would have even had, before this conversation.

Compartmentalization is indeed a better word, thank you! The psychological implications of cognitive dissonance are hard for me to describe, but I've often understood it as the ability to hold two contradictory opinions in your head and not have your head explode. But yes, "compartmentalization" works well here too. Maybe I'm being harsh in calling people who can't compartmentalize "crazy." It's rare for me to experience any kind of emotion intensely, and I use the term "hypersensitivity" for those on the far left and/or people anywhere who can't compartmentalize because it just seems like their inability to compartmentalize leaves them in various states of intense emotion. That just seems unnatural to me and possibly unhealthy. I pick on the right for being in a similar state of emotional distress: people who seriously believe that a massive bipartisan voter fraud conspiracy deprived Trump of an election that he rightfully won are operating on levels of anger, fear, paranoia and mistrust that I cannot fathom. I legit would not have the energy to sustain myself feeling all of those things at that level of intensity all the time.

I respect your take on the issue and agree with you on a lot of it. People are certainly free to "cancel" whoever they want, though I don't necessarily understand or agree with some of those decisions. I'm not launching a crusade to "cancel" the people who participate in cancel culture. But I remain weary of cancel culture because while it has its uses, it also represents a suppression of dissenting opinions and views and (at the risk of sounding like a Republican here) that could conflict with the First Amendment. I admit there's no easy way to distinguish and reconcile "freedom of speech" with the "rightful and necessary repercussions of free speech" but like I said earlier, we're never going to achieve 100% conformity. People need to learn how to disagree with one another and not take so much offense at every real or perceived slight. As you said, there should be priorities over who deserves to be canceled and why, but that's difficult to because everyone is different and will have different priorities. There are no easy answers, but I'm glad we can discuss these issues civilly.

[Hellion]

Sounds centrist to me.

Thank you kindly!

[Hypestyle]

whoever gets the nod for attorney general, they can't be afraid of the "optics" of eventually--- and not 3.9 years into Biden's term--- having criminal investigations and indictments against various actors in the Trump administration.

[zinderel]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/covid...b652dce5840381

The White House proving, once again, that only the rich matter.

[JCAll]

In regard to cognitive dissonance, I was referring to people being incapable of defining a person by more than just one thing. To use the Rowling example again: are her opinions on the transgender debate unpopular/bad/harmful/etc? The consensus seems to be "yes." But should my feelings for and experience of the Harry Potter books be fundamentally changed because of the author's opinions? No. And anyone claiming otherwise needs to seek counseling, because that lack of cognitive dissonance is unhealthy. I read one report of a distressed fan retroactively damning the Potter books in the wake of Rowling's remarks about transfolk because the books themselves feature no trans characters and therefore the books promote trans-erasure. By that logic, most stories in existence practice trans-erasure and are harmful. It's nonsense.

Art nerds have been debating the relationship between art and artist, or lack thereof, since basically forever. It's not exactly the kind of thing worth seeking psychiatric help for.
Some people can't get over a writer being a heel and it colors their experiences, others file everything under "death of the author" or something and never think about it again.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

Dem hating Krystal Ball, I'll pass.

If it makes you feel better she pretty much trashes Republicans the most, soooo

[Steel Inquisitor]

If it makes you feel better she pretty much trashes Republicans the most, soooo

Krystal parrots toxic narratives that divide the Democratic party and embolden conspiracy theories about Sanders losing because the primaries are rigged. If she hated the GOP that much she wouldn't be doing dirty work which helps them.

[Tendrin]

That is a fair point. I tend to generalize, and it gets me into trouble. Most of the people I associate with (friends, family, coworkers, etc) I would consider to be more moderate Democrats. For example, with the trans rights debate/movement/what-have-you, all of them, myself included, support transfolk. But pretty much all of us have trouble accepting the statement that "gender is a social construct." Now, we can believe that gender roles are a social construct, absolutely, but as science believers, we believe that gender is biological. I confess I'm not enlightened enough to know why transfolk disagree with that, but I do think a large part of what informs Rowling's views on the trans movement is that she feels that by claiming gender is a social construct, it devalues cisgender women. I can understand where she's coming from, regardless of whether or not I agree with her. That was a long-winded example, but basically I tend to single out the far left for criticism rather than the left as a whole just because most of the moderate lefties I know have the same concerns about the far left..

*lengthy, weary sigh*

There are numerous trans people who will gladly fill in the blanks of what you're missing about the radfem, TERFism, and gender critical hate groups if you want to look. They are all far, far, *far* more dangerous than the supposed 'far left' who wants to 'cancel' you. Needless to say, Rowling has done more to mainstream trasnsphobia in England than just about anyone else. Sex and gender are complicated issues, but they are *not* as simple. Follow some trans folks like CaseyExplosion, Katy Montgomery, Parker Molloy, Kathryn Burns. Especially follow British trans folks right now.

And cancel culture doesn't actually exist, let alone have any real power. All these supposedly cancelled people, broadcasting how cancelled they are from giant newspapers or comedy specials or their multi million follower twitter accounts. So cancelled.

[Jeremi]

This prime example of the Left cannibalizing their own supporters is why I'm centrist. Your "anybody who doesn't agree with me 100% of the time is the enemy" approach overshoots the rational bounds of criticism and is part of the problem when it comes to our deeply polarized society.

What is there to cannibalize from a body that's already been stripped to the bone? Who is this magical individual so delicious yet so coy that they can't be tempted to join a progressive platform?

If someone is whinging about the fact that reason X is why they aren't joining up with more left-leaning ideology then they were never going to do it in the first place. Being "centrist" in America is more about feeling morally superior over these rubes who argue politics than anything else.

To add I'm not pointing at you specifically with this because your like political ideology seems quite inlined with centrists views, but I've seen what I've described too many times to count.

She also slept with two midwestern mayors.

I wonder if it's a matter of context. In a left-wing environment, are right-wingers less likely to share their opinions? Would left-wingers be more nervous about it in some kind of conservative environment, and therefore more likely to avoid arguments by saying that they see the wisdom of both sides, rather than being honest about where they stand.

On the other hand, from the perspective of someone in the left, a centrist is a right-winger. Someone on the far right would see as a centrist as being very left-wing.

Depends on where it is I suppose and if you're concerned about being killed for your opinion, but a liberal is certainly more open to sharing their political ideology because they don't really have anything to hide as far as being looked at like a fool supporting bigotry and the like, which I feel is why a right-leaning person is way keener on keeping their thoughts hidden, which is why you get replies like "I'm neither left nor right." "Politics are dumb anyway let's change the subject." Because they know they don't have a leg to stand on. Especially when it comes to American politics and supporting "your" party.

As for the bolded part. Of course, they do that's not even up for debate. My point was that in a normal world a Republican should be a conservative with what is now just the usual dogma being spouted by the Republicans in power should be things you'd only hear in a Proud Boys meeting or some sort of militia bunker out in the Appalachians. The fact that there hasn't been some sort of political coup from inside the Republican party to oust that insanity tells me far more than anything else on what they wish the political narrative to be in America moving forward.

[Steel Inquisitor]

What is there to cannibalize from a body that's already been stripped to the bone? Who is this magical individual so delicious yet so coy that they can't be tempted to join a progressive platform?

If someone is whinging about the fact that reason X is why they aren't joining up with more left-leaning ideology then they were never going to do it in the first place. Being "centrist" in America is more about feeling morally superior over these rubes who argue politics than anything else.

To add I'm not pointing at you specifically with this because your like political ideology seems quite inlined with centrists views, but I've seen what I've described too many times to count.

This is where I'm inclined to agree with Hellion, the left is vastly more interested in attacking itself and left leaning allies then the GOP doing the same, until very recently. The Democratic primaries are a bloodbath and if any candidate wins who isn't a leftist many of the toxic leftists won't shut up about dragging them down simply because they're not a leftist.

No, that's not why people are centrist. That's a justification to attack based on tribalism not on actual facts on why people join ideologies. Leftist spaces also have massive problems policing themselves when they cross lines and problems with sexism, misogyny and anti-Semitism, the latter of which is off the charts in the UK left. What makes me sad is that sometimes the right wing didn't make up lies about negative left wing stereo types, especially the Very Online Left. People who are all to happy to alienate allies by giving ammunition to the right rather than stop being terrible. Introspection and self awareness is not something only the right lack, which is why it's disappointing when they left do expect the same thing, acting on feelings rather than facts and choosing which tribe they belong to over conceding that a centrist might be right. The right are really good at exploiting this so they unintentionally become pawns to attack the Democrats with. Outlets like Fox News don't just radicalise the right, they get to the left who will team up with them by using their talking points against common enemies - like Nancy Pelosi.

[The no face guy]

That is a fair point. I tend to generalize, and it gets me into trouble. Most of the people I associate with (friends, family, coworkers, etc) I would consider to be more moderate Democrats. For example, with the trans rights debate/movement/what-have-you, all of them, myself included, support transfolk. But pretty much all of us have trouble accepting the statement that "gender is a social construct." Now, we can believe that gender roles are a social construct, absolutely, but as science believers, we believe that gender is biological. I confess I'm not enlightened enough to know why transfolk disagree with that, but I do think a large part of what informs Rowling's views on the trans movement is that she feels that by claiming gender is a social construct, it devalues cisgender women. I can understand where she's coming from, regardless of whether or not I agree with her. That was a long-winded example, but basically I tend to single out the far left for criticism rather than the left as a whole just because most of the moderate lefties I know have the same concerns about the far left.

Yes I agree with this, the difference between being an Obama/Biden liberal, and someone on the SJW far left, is like the far right, they throw scientific empirical evidence out the door.

We know from MRI graph scans that transgender men to woman, have similar neuropathways of women, which would suggest the development of a third sex, however despite this, they still fundamentally have the body structures of biological males, both in terms of muscle mass, strength, and particularly reflexes.

In my opinion this gives them an unfair advantage playing in women's sports, and if I recall correctly, this is the backdrop Rowling's was in part referring to.

As a fan of MMA fighting, this first came to my attention years ago when the first transgender male to woman fighter literally beat her opponent to a pulp within 2 minutes...it was hard for me to watch knowing the biological differences between the two opponents. (Picked this, as it was the first video footage that popped up)



Most people are in favour of transgender rights, and rightfully so, but there is a fringe extremist group out there that doesn't want to accept rational scientific evidence, because it contradicts their political beliefs...they are a godsend to demagogues on the far right like Trump.