Scott Adams Thread (Garfield Cartoonist)

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Whatever became of our co-conspirator? Perhaps we can find another hot button to press.

What happened is that you guys failed to acknowledge something basic and obvious, and don't do honest discussion. Why would I bother with people that do that? And post all kinds of conspiracies, soak in alt-right media, 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."

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I've been thinking about what distinguishes Left and Right. It used to be anti-war and free speech vs lawn odor; but those qualifiers have been reversed. So I think it comes down to collective vs sovereign.

So you have authoritarian-Left (naught-seas), authoritarian Right (your Pinochets), libertarian-Right (d*mned hippies) and the ever elusive libertarian-Left.

So then I wonder what the third-order axis is. Pro- or anti-war? G-g-g-gender?

Your take is quite inaccurate.

It's pretty easy to distinguish between American "left" and "right." Much of the R has decided that it's okay for their chosen one to try to steal a presidential election. They tend to believe in tradition. Much of the L is more open to domestic cultural issues, but are most often similar to Rs regarding US militarism, which means they support a form of authoritarianism- US militarism as World Policeman (judge, jury, and executioner).

[freebeard]

What happened is that you guys failed to acknowledge something basic and obvious, and don't do honest discussion.

I disagree.

Much of the R has decided that it's okay for their chosen one to try to steal a presidential election.

Your projecting words out of other people's mouths.

[freebeard]

It's pretty easy to distinguish between American "left" and "right."

I'll admit I have a problem here, as a Centrist. My problem goes back to 1976.

https://www.usatoday.com › story › news › politics › 2020 › 11 › 03 › heres-why-republicans-red-and-democrats-blue › 6144842002
Here's why Republicans are 'red' and Democrats are 'blue' - USA TODAY
Nov 3, 2020 In 1976, NBC used its first on-air election map and the bulbs turned red to designate states won by Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter and blue to designate states won by Republican nominee Gerald ...

I've had to pause and remember each time someone says Red or Blue this or that. Being a proponent of Goethe's Theory of Color, it seems to me that since the opposite of blue is orange, the Red party should be the Orange party. Were there a third party, the Greens, then Blue vs Red would make sense to me.

Theory of Colours
1810 book by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Theory of Colours is a book by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe about the poet's views on the nature of colours and how they are perceived by humans. It was published in German in 1810 and in English in 1840. The book contains detailed descriptions of phenomena such as coloured shadows, refraction, and chromatic aberration. The book is a successor to two short essays titled "Contributions to Optics". Wikipedia

Chromatic aberration isn't the only aberration going around.

edit:

Much of the Left .... support a form of authoritarianism- US militarism as [Judge Dredd].

Authoritarian Left -- that would be the naught-seas. Currently instantiated as the Azov Battalion.

[redpoint5]

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.

...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.

soak in alt-right media

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.

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.

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.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Your projecting words out of other people's mouths.

No, I'm not. If people want to vote for the guy that tried to steal the last presidential election, then they must be okay with him trying to steal the last election. Many of them must believe that they're entitled to rule.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Authoritarian Left -- that would be the naught-seas. Currently instantiated as the Azov Battalion.

Nazis weren't left-wing.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

Perhaps you didn't see or read the paragraph after that one? And, you expect me to decipher and counter all of freebeard's ~stuff?

Chuckle. My credibility is fine. You guys come off as intellectually dishonest.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Perhaps you didn't see or read the paragraph after that one? And, you expect me to decipher and counter all of freebeard's ~stuff?

I did, and it didn't address freebeard's comment with regards to what was wrong about it.

I'll give an example of how a good-faith person disagrees with someone. You quote the part you might disagree with;

Originally Posted by freebeard

I've been thinking about what distinguishes Left and Right. It used to be anti-war and free speech vs lawn odor; but those qualifiers have been reversed.

It was the right that was against the Vietnam war, as evidenced by Republican senator Mark Hatfield's opposition, and it was Democratic president LBJ that massively escalated involvement. The left was the party concerned with law and order, as evidenced by Democrat McTough O'crimey, and the right was soft on crime as evidenced by Republican Givem Anotherchance (I got no Google results on that search).

So I think it comes down to collective vs sovereign.

More fundamentally, it comes down to two of the Big Five traits in psychology of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.

[freebeard]

....and then we've got to step back to something even more fundamental until we find common ground.

I can't recall which video it was that I watched recently, but the host had a T-shirt that said "Yes. No. Maybe." Things fall apart when the center cannot hold. I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

(Wow! a jet plane just went over at a very low altitude. ???)

The Maybe takes you away from one-dimensional reasoning. The pitfall becomes whataboutism.

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

What happened is that you guys failed to acknowledge something basic and obvious, and don't do honest discussion.

Can you say that you've engaged in honest discussion about the basic obviousness of multi-variant analysis and history as a weapon?