What Happens When Democracies Become Perniciously Polarized?

[Fun CH]

What I don't like is that you want to control. You post a little pyramid as to how I and others are supposed to discuss or even argue . You jump on me for using the word, "blowhard". Boebart is indeed blustery in my mind.
Can you give us a list of words we should not use?
You do like to lecture.
I know, you are just trying to make us better people.

Consider these quotes from Jon Haidt taking about how social media has changed political discourse.

"When you’re talking with people and arguing and disagreeing with them, that’s fine, that’s great. That’s what politics is supposed to be. But when what you’re saying is aimed at discrediting their sincerity and decency, not rebutting their arguments, but saying “yeah, you’re just saying that because you’re bribed by the Koch brothers.” Or you know, “you’re a fascist, you’re a racist.” Those aren’t real arguments. Those are attempts to discredit the other. So, that’s the more adversarial, confrontational, zero sum, or you might even say negative sum – the more I can hurt you, the better I am. And that’s what our politics has descended more into than it used to be."

"We all really care about our reputations and we suddenly have this technology that allows us to slander anyone else instantly to draw a mob. So, what’s happened is people are really, really afraid. I see this on college campuses. People are so afraid to stand up, stand out, say anything, unless it’s with the mob. If the mob is on their side, then they are so vocal and self-righteous.

But what I’m finding is that even moderates or centrists – people who are not political – are afraid to speak up and challenge the left because they’ll get crucified."

[Fun CH]

Well I always say, when you try to combat hate with hate, all you get is hate.

[PAL]

What I don't like is that you want to control. You post a little pyramid as to how I and others are supposed to discuss or even argue . You jump on me for using the word, "blowhard". Boebart is indeed blustery in my mind.
Can you give us a list of words we should not use?
You do like to lecture.
I know, you are just trying to make us better people.

[Fun CH]

Like I pointed out, the Foe/Ignore option works very well...

Its kind of funny when I see people about to ignor someone on social media. They like to announce it publically to the person they are going to ignore like here's one final Salvo, take that _____.

[pasayten]

Like I pointed out, the Foe/Ignore option works very well...

[Fun CH]

You brought awareness of harrassment at Early Winters. But you did not address the fact that you confronted David on this BB in an aggressive manner.
This is a fact that happened.
You please stop.

oh, so you don't like the fact that I'm pushing back against a guy who can't back up his opinion on the EW thread with facts, and instead creates a lie to back that opinion?

Or maybe you don't like my aggressive push back against a guy who thinks our country should round up and force medical treatment on our citzens who don't feel their risk from Covid justifies the risks associated with the Covid vaccine?

Nope, I'll call that out every time, just as I'll call out racism hate and derogatory name calling hate . If that makes me a bully in your eyes, I'm fine with that.

So attack away, use as much derogatory language as you care to describe me. But doing so only reveals your character not mine.

[PAL]

You brought awareness of harrassment at Early Winters. But you did not address the fact that you confronted David on this BB in an aggressive manner.
This is a fact that happened.
You please stop.

[Fun CH]

I and others were doing just fine on this BB until the Admin decided it was fine for you to be permitted back on. Then you start in with your moral high ground comments.
You accused David of confronting you in the Early Winters parking lot. You were being confrontational on this BB. But you were in the right, according to you. Well, actually you weren't according to David. You were sure leading the charge on that one, weren't you? You set yourself up high, but you were dealing low blows to David. There are other instances but I'm not going to waste my time finding them.
So you don't see it. You don't see yourself as being confrontational on this BB, but with the Parking lot incident it is plain to see you are/were.
We do no do not agree, that's all there is to it. I am a good person, a compassionate person, but according to you I am not.

You are doing it again, please stop.

I never said you were not a good person or compassionate person. In fact I said, by way of, a J. Haidt quote, we are all (majority) good people, left and right who have something important to say.

I have never called you a derogatory name here. I have no personal vendetta against you, do not wish you harm or sickness in any way. I can empathize with your feelings and wish I had a magic word to ease your obvious tension.I wish you the best of a happy life.

I welcome debate on any POINT I make here.

However attacking me personally because any one person seems to not like my opinions severs no purpose, other than perhaps it's good entertainment for some.

I wasn't kicked off this BB, Ray doesn't do that here. I took a long break from all my social media accounts to focus on avalanche mitigation since I spend so much time skiing risky terrain in our local mountains. And yes, when one side controls an echo chamber everything's hunky dory.

As far as the EW parking lot, its the xc skiers who are confronting the snowmobilers. I don't enjoy being harressed parking in a public parking lot when I'm legally parked. That thread brings awareness to the issue.

Did you know there are now laws on the books that it's a crime to harass a hunter? That's how bad it got for them.

It simply has to stop.

[PAL]

I and others were doing just fine on this BB until the Admin decided it was fine for you to be permitted back on. Then you start in with your moral high ground comments.
You accused David of confronting you in the Early Winters parking lot. You were being confrontational and emotional on this BB. Which,oh no, one shouldn't get emotional, according to you, who were quite emotional. But you were in the right, according to you. Well, actually you weren't according to David. You were sure leading the charge on that one, weren't you? You set yourself up high, but you were dealing low blows to David. There are other instances but I'm not going to waste my time finding them.
So you don't see it. You don't see yourself as being confrontational on this BB, but with the Parking lot incident it is plain to see you are/were.
We do no do not agree, that's all there is to it. I am a good person, and a compassionate person. But when you lecture others and me about their behavior but it's ok for you to be confrontational like you were with David, it doesn't jive.

[Fun CH]

It could be said you are a bully. You want the rest of us to conform to your definitions on just about everything. I feel like you are attacking me. Why not attack others for their transgressions? I pointed out your behavior and received the consequences. You cannot change people. You can make them aware. You may think I am full of hate but you are so wrong. And really, you don't know me, do you? You seem to equate disagreements with divisiveness.
It is farewell now.

Pearl, it is you who are leading the charge with a personal attacks and derogatory name calling. That's just a fact. But you can't see it, but you can read it. You just called me a bully. Like I said before, reacting emotionally to a debate point only leads to debate at its lowest form. Argue the point not person.

The definitions I use are directly from the dictionary, often I quote the dictionary . Words have specific meanings, I'm not making those up.

I'm not asking anyone to conform to way of thinking so please don't put words into my mouth. You are free are course free to argue as you see fit.

I'm simply offering an opinion, backed by research into moral reasoning that derogatory name calling serves absolutely no purpose other than to continue the cycle of hate, passed on from generation to generation.

I can see why Jonathan Haidt received so much push back from the extreme left as many can't see their role in furthering our Nations division, nor desire to change most likely due to self-righteousness behavior. Same goes for many on the right BTW.

And we on the left are supposed to be the smart ones?

So Please argue the point. Since many here use it, tell me the benefits and virtues of derogatory name calling and how that leads to harmonious cooperation?

[PAL]

It could be said you are a bully. You want the rest of us to conform to your definitions on just about everything. I feel like you are attacking me. Why not attack others for their transgressions? I pointed out your behavior and received the consequences. You cannot change people. You can make them aware. You may think I am full of hate but you are so wrong. And really, you don't know me, do you? You seem to equate disagreements with divisiveness.
It is farewell now.

[Fun CH]

Chris, I am glad you are so much more perfect than the rest of us.

No Pearl, I'm not perfect but I strongly believe that as adults we need to set a good example.

Where and how exactly do you think children learn their behavior?

How and where do you think children learn to bully?*

How many school shooters were bullied? Answer 87%

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... wmktktd_8S

Its easy to blame guns, but wouldn't it be better to addreess the root cause issues for gun violence and a lot of other negative impacts to our society such as mental health and addiction?

But that all starts with awareness, a willingness to change and then doing the hard work to effect positive outcomes. I'm troubled with what I hear from my tribe, ie "when tthe other side changes, I will", as the cycle of hate continues. The reality is there is no other side there's only us and historically humans do better when they work together in cooperation.

I know its a struggle to change that negative behavior as I work on that every day. Isnt that all part of our personal journey though life? To be and do better?


Side note: Its easy to use derogatory name calling and personal attacks as a debate tactic with those whom don't agree with you. Some even go so far as to call that person who disagrees with them a bully. However, pushing back is not bullying when directed to an adult who presents false information that demonizes others, uses racial slurs, or uses other derogatory comments to make a point.

Intellegent civil push back in those cases is required.


We are all here voluntarily to discuss topics and we have the option to ignore any poster. No one here should be perceived as vulnerable. We are adults many in our 6th and 7th decade of life. We are not children.

*A bully is "a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.

[PAL]

Chris, I am glad you are so much more perfect than the rest of us.

[just-jim]

Boebart did say we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic.

The US is not just simply a ‘constitutional republic’.
.
It would be more correct to say we are a ‘representative democracy’ or a ‘federal constitutional democracy’ or a ‘federal constitutional republic founded on democratic principles’. The idea of a democracy - and one founded on a strong central federal system, rather than on a loose collection of small nation-states - was central to the founders thinking. That democracy was foremost in the minds of the founders is evident in their writings, as well as in the minds of the European political thinkers who preceded them. Very early in our history, around 1800, the idea of a strong federal system was furthered by the establishment of a central banking system, an idea that was surrounded by much debate.
.
We even changed our Constitution, in 1919, to allow a more democratic way of electing US senators, by direct vote. Previously, they had been chosen by State legislatures.
.

[PAL]

I am just quoting what Marjorie said, that is all. Socialist Republic? Collecting Social Security and using Medicare, are we?

[Fun CH]

And just what do you think blowhard means, my dear? Maybe you are thinking something else. Yes, it's derogatory but here is the meaning.

"a person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.
"local blowhard politicians"

It is so beneath me. How do you know what is beneath me? Maybe misspelling Marjorie's name is not nice or respectful. I'm gonna tell her.
But she is unwell, you know. The interview on 60 minutes-Democrats are pedophiles. Heard it with my own ears. How do you unpolarize that?!
Marjorie blusters in an unpleasant way. What in heck is wrong with that? You need to pull your head out.

You like to tell people what they are and what they shouldn't say. You are moralizing. I will have discussions on this BB with other people and you must stop with this self righteousness, self appointed judging. Like I've said to others on here, can't say any little thing without Chrissy havin' a hissy.
Ray, yes, I'm taking advantage of your instructions.

I guess you are correct, derogatory name calling is not beneath you.However, I'll call it out every time someone in my tribe thinks they are accomplishing something meaningful by using it, just as I have called out racist speech on Methow net.

So Pearl is it self-righteous to call out racist speech? You fine with calling socially challenged humans "retards"?

Where do you draw the line exactly?

What's the difference between Trump using derogatory language and you using it?

And yes, I understood your use of word "blowhard". Most words that are used to convey hate have a meaning.

[Jingles]

Boebart did say we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic.

Pearl not sure if you are disagreeing with whatever the name is about this Country not being Demoracy but a Constitutilal Republic, and if you are you disagreeing with Facts the United States is not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic and there is supposed to be Big difference although of late this country is being run as a Socialist Republic

[PAL]

And just what do you think blowhard means, my dear? Maybe you are thinking something else. Yes, it's derogatory but here is the meaning.

"a person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.
"local blowhard politicians"

It is so beneath me. How do you know what is beneath me? Maybe misspelling Marjorie's name is not nice or respectful. I'm gonna tell her.
But she is unwell, you know. The interview on 60 minutes-Democrats are pedophiles. Heard it with my own ears. How do you unpolarize that?!
Marjorie blusters in an unpleasant way. What in heck is wrong with that? You need to pull your head out.

You like to tell people what they are and what they shouldn't say. You are moralizing. I will have discussions on this BB with other people and you must stop with this self righteousness, self appointed judging. Like I've said to others on here, can't say any little thing without Chrissy havin' a hissy.
Ray, yes, I'm taking advantage of your instructions.

[Fun CH]

It's Boebart, not Brobart or Boerbert. Although it could be Blowhard.
Boebart did say we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic.

Using a derogatory word like "Blowhard" is beneath you Pearl and exactly why we are having this discussion. Yes both sides do it, but that doesn't make it right.

I did not lie, I did not backpeddle. The clip I posted is clear as a bell.

I agree, the article was clear. Clearly you took her response to a gun ban out of context and turned it into an untruth perhaps to demonize her further?

That much is clear. I just call them like I see 'em.

[Rideback]

I did not lie, I did not backpeddle. The clip I posted is clear as a bell.

[PAL]

It's Boebart, not Brobart or Boerbert. Although it could be Blowhard.
Boebart did say we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic.

[Fun CH]

The link I gave laid out LB's response to Randi W's comment about the Nashville shooting where she suggested we look at laws that were implemented in Scotland and Australia that were successful in stopping shootings. That is a direct link from Nashville school shooting > the ask for gun control > to a response that we are not a democracy. As a person who walks around the halls of Congress with her AR pin I think she's pretty clear where she stands by her actions in regard to the safety of kids when it comes to gun control.

nice back peddle spin on your misrepresentation of the facts, which is: Brobart's comment was NOT a direct responce to the Nashville school shooting as you portrayed in your post.

Once again Brobart was replying to a call to ban guns by someone using school shootings to deliver that political message as a solution to gun violence (leading cause of death for children in the US right now*).

You accused me of lying and using derogatory name calling. I ask you for the third time to back that up with facts.

When you don't agree with someone, calling them a liar without supporting facts is not a valid argument. You are either here posting in good faith or not. Which is it?

*"Firearms are now the number one cause of death for children in the United States, but rank no higher than fifth in 11 other large and wealthy countries, a new KFF analysis finds".

https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/p ... d-nations/

[Rideback]

The link I gave laid out LB's response to Randi W's comment about the Nashville shooting where she suggested we look at laws that were implemented in Scotland and Australia that were successful in stopping shootings. That is a direct link from Nashville school shooting > the ask for gun control > to a response that we are not a democracy. As a person who walks around the halls of Congress with her AR pin I think she's pretty clear where she stands by her actions in regard to the safety of kids when it comes to gun control.

[Fun CH]

ps Boerbert made 2 different replies, one is an interview which I linked to and the other is her politically correct tweet response.

Here is the quote from the link you posted.

"Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) argued that the United States is "not a democracy" in response to teachers union president Randi Weingarten's call to enact gun bans similar to ones in Australia and New Zealand"

"Boebert spoke about Weingarten's remarks after right-wing host Charlie Kirk speculated that the teachers union president wanted to repeal the Second Amendment."

That is clearly not a direct responce to the latest child massacre as you portrayed it in your post.
*

Lauren Boebert replies to shooting, 'We are not a democracy

Even the website you linked did not go so far as to say Brobert's remarks were in responce to that child school shooting.

You can back pedal if you like, but I prefer facts.

How is your specific case of misinformation that I cited any different then the propaganda that MTG posts?

And I'm still waiting for you to post an example of me lying or using derogatory name calling as was your accusation.

Tell ya what. You first. You and your Rep friends agree to knock off the lies and name calling and when that happens we'll follow suit.

Yes,no doubt I am aggressive when posting about issues I care about and calling out BS.


However, I try hard not to lie or use derogatory name calling as I am a public land watch dog ( activist) and need to maintain some sort of credibility.

[Rideback]

Last night Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes interviewed MTG. It was not 60 Minutes finest hour and today Steve Bannon is celebrating.
Name calling you say, how would you feel to be on the receiving end of MTG claim that you're a pedofile?


By John Amato — April 3, 2023
Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon was in ecstasy this morning on his Sedition podcast.

Discussing Marjorie Taylor Green's appearance with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes, Bannon said, "It doesn't get better than this. MTG calling the Democrats pedophiles, multiple times, with no push back -- by one of their senior 'correspondents.'

00:47
Media critics and political pundits were flabbergasted that CBS News and the iconic 60 Minutes put on a QAnon, conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, white nationalist, anti-democratic congresswoman on the air, for no apparent reason but maybe ratings.

This is two black eyes for their signature news program.

Bannon was orgasmic.

"MTG is Trump in construction boots," he said. "A steel-toed construction boot put in your keister. I can play that all day long."

"Last night, you had the jewel in the crown of the Tiffany Network, revered CBS News of Edward R. Murrow, Murrow's boys, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, handed down for 40 or 50 years as the railhead of really the liberal mainstream media. Not CNN," Bannon opined. "It's the New York Times and CBS News."

"CBS News had on their beloved, revered show, MTG, calling the Democrats pedophiles multiple times with no push-back or virtually no push-back by one of their senior, quote-unquote, correspondents."

"That is historic."

ps Boerbert made 2 different replies, one is an interview which I linked to and the other is her politically correct tweet response.