• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you hold people's political views against them?

Do you hold people's political views against them?


  • Total voters
    74
So it is more important to you to deny that some groups of people are targeted than it is to concede that I may have had a point? Congratulations, you just made my point for me.

And for the record, don't even think of trying to patronize me as an "SJW" at least until I get my first threat of death, rape, or other form of violence. Which I haven't yet.

I never denied anything.

Why did you limit your comment to just "people who are systematically discriminated against", instead of everyone. Is it OK to show contempt or hatred to people outside of " people who are systematically discriminated against"?? Based on your post, I would come to the conclusion that's what you would believe... If I'm wrong, then would you mind clarifying why it was that were so specific about limiting your comment to "people who are systematically discriminated against" and not applying that standard to everyone???
 
2. The specific people in the democrat party who engage in divisiveness are generally no-name left-wing loons who not even democrats respect, with a few exceptions. On the other hand, the specific people engaging in divisiveness in the republican party are some of the most influential people in the GOP. Highly influential pundits and media outlets with tens of millions of followers who live on their every word, officials elected to high office, etc. In my opinion, you cannot compare the 2 and remain honest.

One of my major points of contention with President Obama has been how divisive he has been, starting on the campaign trail in 2008 and only gaining momentum every year. Republicans surely share some of the blame for the political climate of the last eight years, but President Obama is hardly blameless. Quite to the contrary, in fact, so much so that I don't remember who shot first anymore. I don't see it as a name-brand problem in the GOP only, not when the holder of the highest office engages in the worst sort of divisive rhetoric at seemingly every chance he has. In fact, it seems that all of the power players in the Democratic Party have been on a brutal political offensive since around 2006. And I'm not excusing the Republicans by any stretch with that observation, but I'm not going to say they're worse at it when the Democrats are swinging just as hard, just as often, and just as far below the belt.

It's kind of like observing bias in the media and claiming "yeah, they're all bad, but [x] is worse," when they are all pretty terrible on the same level.
 
Is it OK to show contempt or hatred to people outside of " people who are systematically discriminated against"?? Based on your post, I would come to the conclusion that's what you would believe... If I'm wrong, then would you mind clarifying why it was that were so specific about limiting your comment to "people who are systematically discriminated against" and not applying that standard to everyone???

Actually, some groups of people have to realize that while everyone is equal, they are less equal then others. In http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/253513-hate-speech.html , Phys251 explains that some hate speech is just satire and anyone who objects is angry/emotional/etc.
 
I never denied anything.

Oh yes you did. And you can't see your denial for the same reason that a fugitive can't find the police.

Why did you limit your comment to just "people who are systematically discriminated against", instead of everyone. Is it OK to show contempt or hatred to people outside of " people who are systematically discriminated against"?? Based on your post, I would come to the conclusion that's what you would believe... If I'm wrong, then would you mind clarifying why it was that were so specific about limiting your comment to "people who are systematically discriminated against" and not applying that standard to everyone???

Hmm. What do you really think I think?
 
Actually, some groups of people have to realize that while everyone is equal, they are less equal then others. In http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/253513-hate-speech.html , Phys251 explains that some hate speech is just satire and anyone who objects is angry/emotional/etc.

If you and faithful servant want to make this thread about me instead of the topic at hand, I would not object in the slightest. Of course, not everyone may hold the same opinion as that.
 
If you and faithful servant want to make this thread about me instead of the topic at hand, I would not object in the slightest. Of course, not everyone may hold the same opinion as that.

OK, we can make this about SCitizen -- sometimes he holds people's unjustified hatred of others against them. He mostly uses strong words to criticize Main Stream Media contributes rather then other posters on forums.
 
One of my major points of contention with President Obama has been how divisive he has been, starting on the campaign trail in 2008 and only gaining momentum every year. Republicans surely share some of the blame for the political climate of the last eight years, but President Obama is hardly blameless. Quite to the contrary, in fact, so much so that I don't remember who shot first anymore. I don't see it as a name-brand problem in the GOP only, not when the holder of the highest office engages in the worst sort of divisive rhetoric at seemingly every chance he has. In fact, it seems that all of the power players in the Democratic Party have been on a brutal political offensive since around 2006. And I'm not excusing the Republicans by any stretch with that observation, but I'm not going to say they're worse at it when the Democrats are swinging just as hard, just as often, and just as far below the belt.

It's kind of like observing bias in the media and claiming "yeah, they're all bad, but [x] is worse," when they are all pretty terrible on the same level.

What you might find interesting is many leaders in the African American community think the exact opposite. Louis Farrakhan has been one of his harshest critics accusing the President of failing the black community by refusing to speak up for them. I personally can count on one hand the number of times the President has weighed in on any issue in support of African Americans and except one, not until his second term. The thinking was he intentionally avoided speaking out on sensitive race-relation matters because he didn't want to be accused of not being the President of All Americans, something even former white Presidents didn't have to consider.

I think what happens is many if not most people revert to tribal alliances is assessing right and wrong in political matters. I have a friend...somebody I know... who gave me heck because I posted a story on my Facebook page about a young doctor who was doing research that could lead to an amazing breakthrough in the fight against cancer. The problem in his view: It was a video clip from a news program that was broadcast on a cable channel dedicated to African American interests and reported by a black reporter. I promise you can't make this stuff up. His assertion was the cable channel and especially the reporter himself were hate-filled racists. He completely missed the fact that we could be on the verge on a cure for cancer! Anyway, in my committed to the truth, I decided to google the name of the reporter in quotations followed by the word racist. Guess what? Yep, not a single racist thing has the man ever uttered. In fact, it was the exact opposite; pages of results of him fighting racism, both white racism and criticizing the black lives matter movement. My friend's definition of racist seems to be any black person who works for BET or TV-One. Unbelievable!

I challenge anyone who thinks Obama has been racially divisive to look up specific instances. Here's what I've found:

1. Encouraging inner-city parents to turn off the TV and game consoles and make their kids read and do homework...all without mentioning race.

2. At a time when it seemed an underage kid was shot dead for being black in a neighborhood where being black automatically made one suspect, he called for all Americans to try to sympathize with black youths who routinely are subjected to stop and frisk and driving while black investigations that no other race (except maybe Hispanics in Arizona lately) have to endure.

3. Encouraging Americans exercising free-speech in support of blacks who had been killed by police, many under what seem to be unjust circumstances, to renounce violence and do so peacefully.

4. In a town-hall discussion on race relations, he shared a story from his youth when he was 11 a white neighbor avoided getting on an elevator with him in explaining to the American people how blacks are often feared, in an effort to foster greater understanding among the races.

5. A Harvard professor was thought to be breaking into his own home presumably because he was black in a neighborhood where blacks are few in number. A law enforcement officer entered the professor's property, a which time the professor became irate and stated he planned to file a formal complaint that his 4th amendment rights were violated. The officer then cleverly lured the professor out of his home while the professor was irate in order to have justification to arrest him for disturbing the peace. The President, spoke out in support of the professor.

Can't think of anything else and I personally don't think any of these should be thought of as divisive and think our only hope as a nation to resolve our differences is to try to understand each other.
 
Absolutely, especially if they are rabid pro-life or intolerably Politically Correct... stuff like that.
 
If you are reasonable, I don't care about your politics. If you are a nut job- right wing or left wing- I will hold it against you.

But reasonable people do not hold unreasonable political beliefs...
 
Absolutely, especially if they are rabid pro-life or intolerably Politically Correct... stuff like that.

Thus you oppose both Ultra Liberals and Ultra Conservatives.
 
I think this is a little more complicated than it looks in the current climate, where things that have been considered moral and not political issues for 100 years are suddenly back in the "political" camp.

I definitely judge people for some of the positively Victorian things that are coming back into vogue. You will never be able to convince me that people who want segregation back and to put into place government-funded torture of minors just have a "difference of politics." They have a difference of fundamental morality.

Just because we call it "political" doesn't mean it is. Political is economics, military, internal spending -- infrastructure, healthcare, what level of government gets to govern X? But the sorts of things above are not political, and I refuse to lend them more validity than they deserve by pretending otherwise.

It is very en vogue to prove that you're cool by being ok with anything and everything, as long as it's someone's opinion, moral compass be damned. Can't have someone thinking you're a square with actual convictions, who thinks protecting vulnerable questioning 13-year-olds is more important than getting brownie points from some stranger. Well, I have standards. Proud to be an un-cool, judgy asshole with a moral compass.

So, "yes" then?
 
:roll:

Carry on, X.

Eh, just a joke. I notice you mention morals which, I think, is interesting. We all pretty much want our morals made into laws that force others to adhere to them, don't we? Those who would be all, "I'd never try to force my morals on someone else" are full of it.
 
Eh, just a joke. I notice you mention morals which, I think, is interesting. We all pretty much want our morals made into laws that force others to adhere to them, don't we? Those who would be all, "I'd never try to force my morals on someone else" are full of it.

Not necessarily. Most things we have considered to be political in most of the last century, which is the era where we stopped thinking it's ok to treat others are non-human, is not so much a question of morals as it is a question of theory. We debate morals in terms of what we should be like as a culture and a society, but not so much in terms of what should be law.

In the last 10 years or so, after decades of reasonably steady improvement, we have slowly been seeing a revival of the school of morality that believes some people -- most people, in fact -- are lesser humans. These are people who literally believe in the stuff I named.

But as an overall culture, we are very post-modern and raised to be polite of people's political opinions specifically BECAUSE we assume that even if they have a different idea of what to do, we AGREE morally in the reason why something needs addressing. We take it for granted that almost everyone will AT LEAST agree that all people are people, and that leaves us ill-equip to call out this **** for what it is: draconian lunacy.

They brand themselves as a political movement, and we, ill-equipped post modernists with no experience with this sort of mentality, allow them to do so, and thereby bar ourselves for calling them out for what they are, because politics are to be respected.

Well, I'm calling it what it is. Draconian lunacy.

Yes, I'll totally force my morals on others when the "others" in question are trying to subjugate, hurt, or even kill people. And so should anyone who claims to love what America purports itself to be, not politically, but culturally and morally: a place for all kinds of different people.
 
Not necessarily. Most things we have considered to be political in most of the last century, which is the era where we stopped thinking it's ok to treat others are non-human, is not so much a question of morals as it is a question of theory. We debate morals in terms of what we should be like as a culture and a society, but not so much in terms of what should be law.

In the last 10 years or so, after decades of reasonably steady improvement, we have slowly been seeing a revival of the school of morality that believes some people -- most people, in fact -- are lesser humans. These are people who literally believe in the stuff I named.

But as an overall culture, we are very post-modern and raised to be polite of people's political opinions specifically BECAUSE we assume that even if they have a different idea of what to do, we AGREE morally in the reason why something needs addressing. We take it for granted that almost everyone will AT LEAST agree that all people are people, and that leaves us ill-equip to call out this **** for what it is: draconian lunacy.

They brand themselves as a political movement, and we, ill-equipped post modernists with no experience with this sort of mentality, allow them to do so, and thereby bar ourselves for calling them out for what they are, because politics are to be respected.

Well, I'm calling it what it is. Draconian lunacy.

Yes, I'll totally force my morals on others when the "others" in question are trying to subjugate, hurt, or even kill people. And so should anyone who claims to love what America purports itself to be, not politically, but culturally and morally: a place for all kinds of different people.

Unless they're in the womb of course.
 
Unless they're in the womb of course.

If we're to consider an embryo a person, then it is quite overtly hurting the woman in question, and she absolutely has every right to remove it regardless of what an embryo may or may not be.

I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this to you, but you seem fuzzy on the idea of women being people with the same self-protective rights you have, so I don't know that you'll ever quite get it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom