Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
What happened is that you guys failed to acknowledge something basic and obvious, and don't do honest discussion.
|
Obviously, it wasn't obvious (to me), otherwise I'd have responded
If you take the time to explain what I'm missing, I'll take the time to respond (pointing out where there's agreement and disagreement).
I'll point out that I attempted to find where we might have common ground by defining "justice". You haven't commented on that, so there's no way to know if that's a suitable starting point for discussion. If you disagree with my proposed definition, then you've got to state that, and then we've got to step back to something even more fundamental until we find common ground.
A discussion focused on understanding requires starting from a common place.
Quote:
|
...post all kinds of conspiracies
|
Which conspiracies are you referring to? This thread revolves around an eccentric person who happens to know a lot about human motivation and persuasion. He throws all kind of whacky ideas out there, and a handful happen to land.
Define alt-right media. My definition would be something like white-supremacist's, white nationalists, or those who want certain races to leave the country (though even that starts to get muddy with the recent racism against Jewish citizens).
I wouldn't even know what media that would be. I've heard the name David Duke before, but I wouldn't know if he has a news agency.
All of mainstream media is somewhere left of center, so naturally I'm more exposed to perspectives on the left.
Most of the podcasts I listen to are long-form discussions by Democrats, or those identifying left of center.
All but 1 of my friends are left-leaning or Democrat except for 1, which I hardly see since he's in another state.
Quote:
|
and say absurd things such as "takers" in response to reparations for chattel slavery? It's obvious who the "takers" were, but the dood seems to be deeply into the notion of "meritocracy."
|
There are givers, and there are takers. What words are more concise that convey that relationship? Givers and receivers, perhaps? I disagree with that even, because those paying aren't "giving", as that implies a freely made decision and not compulsion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtlethargic
Your take is quite inaccurate.
|
You have got to explain what is inaccurate. You don't get to dismiss it without explanation and simultaneously maintain credibility as a good-faith participant in a discussion.