Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Calandale]

What seems weird to me is that you see things in a very narrow band, in order to call the two parties
fundamentally different, but must broaden it greatly to say that they cannot change.

I seem to be doing the opposite.

Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.

[Jack]

What seems weird to me is that you see things in a very narrow band, in order to call the two parties
fundamentally different, but must broaden it greatly to say that they cannot change.

I seem to be doing the opposite.

Don't think they're fundamentally different. The entire system has a necessary set of priorities in order to function, and the distinction is ranking them. Narrow is just as good a word as simplistic, but I don't think my viewpoint has to be widened because I'm not saying they can't change, but rather they haven't changed, at least not for a long time. Of course the details of a given platform do change, but they have to. Economics grows more complex, there's always a new circumstance to question what a civil liberty means, some other group to be the new focus of civil rights, some new protection workers need to have. The party that gets their way the most will be seen as the more extreme. Though give either of them an inch and they'll take a mile, or in my simplistic view, give them an ounce and they'll take a pound.

Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.

Gloom and doom type? Jack is an optimist, so probably wont go their with you.

[Calandale]

Don't think they're fundamentally different. The entire system has a necessary set of priorities in order to function, and the distinction is ranking them. Narrow is just as good a word as simplistic, but I don't think my viewpoint has to be widened because I'm not saying they can't change, but rather they haven't changed, at least not for a long time.

I don't know what a 'very long time' is, but they have in my lifetime.

Of course the details of a given platform do change, but they have to. Economics grows more complex, there's always a new circumstance to question what a civil liberty means, some other group to be the new focus of civil rights, some new protection workers need to have.

But, it's not like one party is in favor of civil rights and the other isn't. It's that they flexibly define those rights to
match their constituencies.When the whole spectrum of what is possible is so narrow, there is bound to be a lot
of crossing over.

The party that gets their way the most will be seen as the more extreme. Though give either of them an inch and they'll take a mile, or in my simplistic view, give them an ounce and they'll take a pound.

There is a tendency in that direction, to be sure. As a change becomes popularized, the prior fringe
doesn't sit on its laurels, but moves to more radical solutions - or they lose their credibility as radicals.
It may not be the same people - but the concept of the baseline and what is possible have moved.

Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.

Gloom and doom type? Jack is an optimist, so probably wont go their with you.

An optimist would believe that radical change could end up with a better solution than an obviously flawed one.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Jack, it's good (IMO) to hone your ability to present your ideas and back them up. And one of the best ways to do that is to present your ideas to people who may not agree with you and will challenge your assumptions. It’s also good not to get too emotionally invested in your views (except sometimes as a debating tactic).

Often those challenges to your assumptions will help you to develop your opinions and maybe even slightly change some of them.

I^2 may not always be the best place to do that. Arguments here tend to be decided more by who has the best insults, the best snark, and so on. I currently post on a couple of other forums, one of which has a core group of established members who are very progressive, and where my views fit right in and I rarely get challenged. The other is at the opposite end of the spectrum, a bunch of neo-conservatives with very different views to my own on pretty much everything. I play nice and I don’t hold back there, and if they’ve got some good counter-arguments then I can learn something. And if all they’ve got is insults or trying to stick me in a box, then I’m entertained and I can play off that and have a bit of fun.
 
You mentioned Scrap and Al. I find that Scrap’s debating style tends to involve finding a YouTube pundit with similar (usually not particularly progressive) views to Scrap, posting that clip, and then insulting anyone who disagrees with it. The reason why I don’t bother watching those YouTube clips any more is that I’ve given them a few chances and found them to be ultimately a complete waste of my time. If I wasn’t entertained and I didn’t learn anything…. I’m not going to trust your judgement on what is worth watching. Occasionally I will watch just enough of a video that Scrap has posted so that I can poke fun at it.

I see Al’s debating style as being strategic. He uses an immense number of words and often it is very difficult to pick whether there is any discernible case in there. There also tend to be a bunch of strategic questions (designed to put you on the defensive and back you into a corner) with Al effectively appointing himself as moderator of the argument and determining whether your answers are acceptable to him or not. The trick is not to play the game by his rules.

I am aware that Scrap and Al are usually clever enough to not play the game by my rules either. I’m really only here to have fun, and when it stops being fun you won’t see me for dust. Occasionally I forget where I am and I try to have a serious discussion. But mostly not.

[Jack]

Don't think they're fundamentally different. The entire system has a necessary set of priorities in order to function, and the distinction is ranking them. Narrow is just as good a word as simplistic, but I don't think my viewpoint has to be widened because I'm not saying they can't change, but rather they haven't changed, at least not for a long time.

I don't know what a 'very long time' is, but they have in my lifetime.

Of course the details of a given platform do change, but they have to. Economics grows more complex, there's always a new circumstance to question what a civil liberty means, some other group to be the new focus of civil rights, some new protection workers need to have.

But, it's not like one party is in favor of civil rights and the other isn't. It's that they flexibly define those rights to
match their constituencies.When the whole spectrum of what is possible is so narrow, there is bound to be a lot
of crossing over.

The party that gets their way the most will be seen as the more extreme. Though give either of them an inch and they'll take a mile, or in my simplistic view, give them an ounce and they'll take a pound.

There is a tendency in that direction, to be sure. As a change becomes popularized, the prior fringe
doesn't sit on its laurels, but moves to more radical solutions - or they lose their credibility as radicals.
It may not be the same people - but the concept of the baseline and what is possible have moved.

Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.

Gloom and doom type? Jack is an optimist, so probably wont go their with you.

An optimist would believe that radical change could end up with a better solution than an obviously flawed one.

I think we're just going to have to disagree on the point, if democrats and republicans have or have not changed what they stand for. I'm not saying a party is in favor of anything and other isn't, but I do believe republicans favor the wellbeing of the unit over the individual and vise versa, but both also realize one can't function without the other, and circumstances can often dictate, stifle, and even accelerate just how far a given party can take things. I think an optimist can look at what's working and want to do more of that.

[Jack]

Jack, it's good (IMO) to hone your ability to present your ideas and back them up. And one of the best ways to do that is to present your ideas to people who may not agree with you and will challenge your assumptions. It’s also good not to get too emotionally invested in your views (except sometimes as a debating tactic).

Not sure what you're saying here, but if it's to say I've been too emotionally invested in this topic, then am not sure how to respond to that. The topic is political, and I became emotionally invested when it was made to be about me. When topics aren't about me, I think I do pretty good job of being impersonal; in fact I sometimes wonder if my persona is a bit too affectless.

[Calandale]

I^2 may not always be the best place to do that. Arguments here tend to be decided more by who has the best insults, the best snark, and so on.

Quite. But, that's the fun of the place.

[Calandale]

Not sure what you're saying here, but if it's to say I've been too emotionally invested in this topic, then am not sure how to respond to that. The topic is political, and I became emotionally invested when it was made to be about me. When topics aren't about me, I think I do pretty good job of being impersonal; in fact I sometimes wonder if my persona is a bit too affectless.

I don't think that's fair. Not at all.

When you start presenting a version of history that is not supported by the facts, it undermines your whole argument.
That's what I was pointing out.

[Jack]

I^2 may not always be the best place to do that. Arguments here tend to be decided more by who has the best insults, the best snark, and so on.

Quite. But, that's the fun of the place.

With the exception of a break between this account and my previous one, I've posted here for nine years wading through the most heated discussions with minimal personal conflict, and the serious ones I've had were my fault for getting personal, so I don't think I need it explained to me what arguments are on I2 because I've seen enough of them. That's the thing. I didn't realize I having an argument.

[Jack]

Not sure what you're saying here, but if it's to say I've been too emotionally invested in this topic, then am not sure how to respond to that. The topic is political, and I became emotionally invested when it was made to be about me. When topics aren't about me, I think I do pretty good job of being impersonal; in fact I sometimes wonder if my persona is a bit too affectless.

I don't think that's fair. Not at all.

When you start presenting a version of history that is not supported by the facts, it undermines your whole argument.
That's what I was pointing out.

My apologies for this, Cal. We were able to get back on topic for a couple of days so I didn't expect this to come up again. Odeon and MOSW twisting my words irked me, but the fact it was so completely dismissive to end the discussion really upset me. You were not only dismissive, but also offered a personal assessment of me, so yes that made it about me. In another context that assessment might not have been so impactful, but I got the distinct impression none of you think I'm worth discussing this. I've always said everyone gets something they need from I2. I don't generally talk about myself or my personal life, moan about my problems, ask advice, or talk about the weather. I don't even like talking about politics, but threads like this are absolutely what I get out of I2. Now if slinging mud is what other people get out of I2, far be it from me take away from that, but I'm telling you guys this thread is basically all I2 has to offer me right now, and I was dismissed.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Jack, to call a spade a spade, the good news is that I generally find you intelligent and thoughtful and sensible. This being I^2 and all, it would be quite clear if I did not.

The bad news is that you sometimes engage in discussions using statements based on assumptions that are not at all clear to others involved in the discussion. When others reframe your words it may simply be that they are trying to make sense of what the heck you are saying. At that point you can point out that they are mistaken about what you are trying to say, and attempt to make your point more clearly (this happens quite a lot on more polite discussion platforms). Or you can take this personally.

And yes, I know that you know what sort of discussion platform I^2 is. So you cannot always expect intelligent and thoughtful discussion, and you may not get the best exposure to good debating tactics and great ways to present your opinions. That was kind of my point there, pointing out the differences between I^2 and some other discussion platforms.

[Jack]

And yes, I know that you know what sort of discussion platform I^2 is. So you cannot always expect intelligent and thoughtful discussion,

Considering the small group of thoughtful and intelligent people who this site has dwindled to, I think maybe I can. I've watch I2 evolve from what's now romanticized, to later basically be what I called an internet spaz rest home, then it exploded into something awful that will never be called the good ole days. Throughout it all I managed to avoid crap like this. Maybe I've lost my touch, maybe I expect too much from I2, maybe I'm the only one left to do it to.

[Calandale]

That's the thing. I didn't realize I having an argument.

Not sure either of us was. In the sense of being emotional about it.
Obviously, since we disagreed, we were presenting arguments - and
thus I guess 'having one'.

[Calandale]

... You were not only dismissive, but also offered a personal assessment of me, so yes that made it about me. In another context that assessment might not have been so impactful, but I got the distinct impression none of you think I'm worth discussing this. I've always said everyone gets something they need from I2. I don't generally talk about myself or my personal life, moan about my problems, ask advice, or talk about the weather. I don't even like talking about politics, but threads like this are absolutely what I get out of I2. Now if slinging mud is what other people get out of I2, far be it from me take away from that, but I'm telling you guys this thread is basically all I2 has to offer me right now, and I was dismissed.

Oh come off it. Mentioning that I've seen you seem to dig in and claim something that seems completely without basis before?
Drawing assessments as to what your argumentation style appears as?

You should be aware that people are going to view you this way, if you make outrageous claims.

AND, if they weren't, you should be able to show how you're being misread.

[Jack]

That's the thing. I didn't realize I having an argument.

Not sure either of us was. In the sense of being emotional about it.
Obviously, since we disagreed, we were presenting arguments - and
thus I guess 'having one'.

I realize you guys didn't intend to get me so riled up, and individually it probably wouldn't have.

... You were not only dismissive, but also offered a personal assessment of me, so yes that made it about me. In another context that assessment might not have been so impactful, but I got the distinct impression none of you think I'm worth discussing this. I've always said everyone gets something they need from I2. I don't generally talk about myself or my personal life, moan about my problems, ask advice, or talk about the weather. I don't even like talking about politics, but threads like this are absolutely what I get out of I2. Now if slinging mud is what other people get out of I2, far be it from me take away from that, but I'm telling you guys this thread is basically all I2 has to offer me right now, and I was dismissed.

Oh come off it. Mentioning that I've seen you seem to dig in and claim something that seems completely without basis before?
Drawing assessments as to what your argumentation style appears as?

You should be aware that people are going to view you this way, if you make outrageous claims.

AND, if they weren't, you should be able to show how you're being misread.

Yes, It seems clear you believe I should have this personal input.