Debate

[Commander Makara]

Intends to mean a discussion through which opinion and perspective can be shared for mutual understanding and learning - hopefully, but not necessarily, through which a more rounded vision can be achieved by all participants.

Sadly, as how so many principle terms have been 'redefined' in recent years (to evade issues or criticism), the word is now used and employed in service of some arena in which one conflicts with an opponent whereby the loudest voice might garner more support from an audience - neither participant accepting anything the other claims and certainly not wishing to allow any segue on their views.

-
edit - fixed typing errors

[El poco nuez del muerte]

Conway a écrit :

Jej a écrit :

Here's all the debates nowadays:

"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"

They are both totalitarian scumbags anyway.

Maybe we should stop categorizing the political landscape into "left-center-right" and
instead into "recognices the significance of the individual" and "willing to happily walk over the corpses of millions".

[bearsboi]

no that’s an argument, arguments are different from debate. but I see what you’re saying, it seems most of us have lost the ability to debate thanks to identity politics and the cancerous leftism

[Chunk Norris ☯]

El poco nuez del muerte a écrit :

Conway a écrit :

"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You're a Communist!"

They are both totalitarian scumbags anyway.

Maybe we should stop categorizing the political landscape into "left-center-right" and
instead into "recognices the significance of the individual" and "willing to happily walk over the corpses of millions".

We can't have people being judged by their own individual actions. That would destroy many of the political concepts that exist today even if iit would explain a good many things. For instance we can't have black people thinking that whites aren't out to get them, we need to give broad blanket statement that seek to divide people otherwise we'll have individuals and people thinking for themselves and if a person thinks for themselves they can't be turned into a Mushroom (kept the dark and fed bull crap).

[Captain Morgan]

Debate is a real luxury nowadays, lately... Most people shriek "You fascist", "You bigot", "You nazi", "You kitten-murderer", every time your opinion tends to disagree with theirs, or happens to differ. They don't discuss, they don't accept or provide arguments, they only demand from you, assume you and merely brand you, throw a fancy word, a make-believe label and they are done with you.

Today, everybody's a bigot, a racist, long lost Adolph's cousin, etc. R.I.P. Democracy, freedom of speech, debate/dialogue. Everybody who disagrees on mainstream "fashion" and newfound customs, is the f-ing enemy. What debate.

[Black91]

Captain Morgan a écrit :

Debate is a real luxury nowadays, lately... Most people shriek "You fascist", "You bigot", "You nazi", "You kitten-murderer", every time your opinion tends to disagree with theirs, or happens to differ. They don't discuss, they don't accept or provide arguments, they only demand from you, assume you and merely brand you, throw a fancy word, a make-believe label and they are done with you.

Today, everybody's a bigot, a racist, long lost Adolph's cousin, etc. R.I.P. Democracy, freedom of speech, debate/dialogue. Everybody who disagrees on mainstream "fashion" and newfound customs, is the f-ing enemy. What debate.

Well said. Sad a simply dialoge cannot coexist with a difference of opinions anymore.

[Ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍]

Loki Monster a écrit :

*Edited to keep thread tidy*

It's not rational though. What you are sighting is irrational stereotyping based off presold notions regarding a very narrow minority of subjects. It is no more logical than me expecting the Pope to kick in my door and drag me into the street to get lynched.

If 99% of something is one way, and the opposite 1% gets slapped on the news nightly, you shouldn't hate 100%. That is the opposite of rational thought. It is stupidity writ large.

And it is why I view so many so poorly.

[Commander Makara]

Further, there exists within social media especially but also across other platforms too, a tendency to attempt to incite and goad or humiliate as opposed to enter discourse.

[Spíosra]

Commander Makara a écrit :

Further, there exists within social media especially but also across other platforms too, a tendency to attempt to incite and goad or humiliate as opposed to enter discourse.

Welcome to the internet of flaming and trolling.

[Chunk Norris ☯]

ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍 a écrit :

Loki Monster a écrit :

*Edited to keep thread tidy*

It's not rational though. What you are sighting is irrational stereotyping based off presold notions regarding a very narrow minority of subjects. It is no more logical than me expecting the Pope to kick in my door and drag me into the street to get lynched.

If 99% of something is one way, and the opposite 1% gets slapped on the news nightly, you shouldn't hate 100%. That is the opposite of rational thought. It is stupidity writ large.

And it is why I view so many so poorly.

I guess you're referring to my first post on page one. As for that I'll say this>

Take Black Lies Matters, it's a group that has had some bad eggs do some horrible things like target and kill 5 police officers, but is that really an isolated incident and completely against the message that BLM is trying to push? I'd argue that BLM killing cops supports their overall messages based on their own actions. And this is all on youtube if you want actual footage of BLM supporters and leaders chanting these things..."What do we want? Dead cops! When Do we want it? Now!" or they've also chanted "Pig's in a blanket, fry em like bacon" both are cop killing chants and BLM have killed police officers.

OR switching over to Islamaphobia...it's the irrational fear of something. Knowing that Muslims are the number one responsibile party for terrorism in the World kind of sets them apart from other religions. And while not every Muslim is a terrorist it's important to note what Muslim heavy countries are like. Many Muslim heavy countries would kill women who show their faces and if you're homosexual you're probably going to be stoned to death. Many Muslim familes believe in honor killings, which is basically your parents disapproving of who you decide to date, so it's their right to kill you for your choice in dating partners. Moral of this is that it's not irrational fear if you decide something is wrong.

In modern times and if you're a liberal it's perfectly acceptable to trash Christianity, but make fun of a religion that's responsible for thousands of people each year being murders because of someone's elses violent religious beliefs, and suddenly you're a bad person.

[Tony Abbott]

Just because the Nazi's called themselves 'National Socialists', does not mean they were actually socialist...
By that same token, the 'Democratic Republic of North Korea' is actually democratic! Wow!

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Tony Abbott a écrit :

Just because the Nazi's called themselves 'National Socialists', does not mean they were actually socialist...
By that same token, the 'Democratic Republic of North Korea' is actually democratic! Wow!

Except they were socialist. They're always labeled as being right wing, but lets be honest far right idealogies tend towards anarchy, with very limited government and high personal freedoms. They don't want the government to create healthcare or welfare. They want the smallest government possible.

Whereas the Nazi's had a welfare state, they created Universal Healthcare, they took away freedoms from certain classes of people, they disarmed the Jews. Nazi's believed in Big Government, same as the idealogies of the current liberal parties.

[Mr. Upda]

So anyone look into the Net Neutrality bill? I was wondering about Valve's plans for this if the bill gets taken down. Whether they would stay the same, adopt a Playstation take on things and only offer deals/discounts and multi-player for high end games through paid membership, or only offer services to paid subscriptions; or up the tax on player marketed items.

[Thop]

ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍 a écrit :

Commander Makara a écrit :

Intends to mean a discussion through which opinion and perspective can be shared for mutual understanding and learning - hopefully, but not necessarily, through which a more rounded vision can be achieved by all participants.

Sadly, as how so many principle terms have been 'redefined' in recent yearsd (to evade issues or criticism) the word is now used and employed in srervice of some arena in which one conflicts with ann opponent whereby the loudest voice might garner more support - neither aprticipant accepting anything the other claims and certainly not wishing to allow any segue on their views.

Debate is a verbal spar with an exchange of ideas and thought.

All we get are arguments now days, which are narrow minded shouting matches which have no middle ground.

NO U!

[Devious]

Loki Monster a écrit :

But that's the beauty of today's politics. Nazi's were socialist, hence National Socialist Workers Party, so techinically liberals are either Nazi's or Communists. If you a Bernie Socialist, then you're a Nazi. And if you're not a progressive liberal you're a communist.

Nazi's killed 11 million people, Communists killed 41 million people...moral of the story it's bad to be liberal.

I didn't think it was possible to have such a poor understanding of these words and the systems they describe.

Nazis hated both communism and liberalism in all their forms. In fact, fascism (and, by extension, nazism) was conceived as a third alternative to these systems. You have to dig a little deeper than the name, which was picked to attract the worker vote in Weimar Germany. Also, Bernie's positions are centrist almost anywhere in the industrialized world outside of the US. They don't even qualify as socialist, as they aim to reform a capitalist (turned corporatist) system rather than replace it.

As for liberals being nazis and communists, I'm not sure what to say except consult a dictionnary?

[Devious]

Commander Makara a écrit :

Intends to mean a discussion through which opinion and perspective can be shared for mutual understanding and learning - hopefully, but not necessarily, through which a more rounded vision can be achieved by all participants.

Sadly, as how so many principle terms have been 'redefined' in recent years (to evade issues or criticism), the word is now used and employed in service of some arena in which one conflicts with an opponent whereby the loudest voice might garner more support from an audience - neither participant accepting anything the other claims and certainly not wishing to allow any segue on their views.

-
edit - fixed typing errors

I wouldn't say this is a recent development. People have always been more interested in preserving their ego than reconsidering their positions when faced with new facts. I can't really think of a time when we were more open to one another's perspectives.