(November 21, 2017 at 2:09 am)Minimalist Wrote: Who gives a flying fuck what they think.

They have much to answer for.

We live in a democracy. So what any citizen over the age of 18 thinks actually does impact me, and I do care what they think. It's not just a matter of being nice or reciprocal - it's a matter of productive discourse. Discourse happens, and it changes people's views, and it changes people's decisions. If done right.

In a democracy, people's views are a tool. A currency.

---

(November 21, 2017 at 2:27 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 2:05 am)shadow Wrote: So you think Republicans, upon reading 'Republicunt', will reflect upon their views and decide to become Democrats instead?

It's kind of like clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.  We all have to do it and with great enthusiasm.

Uh huh. Because self-reflection and intellectual curiosity is usually someone's reaction to an overwhelming gang of haters in a hostile situation.

Yeah no, I don't really defend and prefer to avoid it. I don't think it really works.

(November 21, 2017 at 2:05 am)shadow Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 1:55 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Insults are a form of social disapproval of whatever behavior the other is engaged in.  It's a form of applying pressure for change.

So you think Republicans, upon reading 'Republicunt', will reflect upon their views and decide to become Democrats instead?

No, insult by itself is unlikely to change the views of the insulted.

However, if the insulted is in any way salvageable, and has been triggered by other experiences to reflect upon his or her views, then if he or she actually has the mental curiosity to actually make the reflection an potentially profitable exercise, then the chances are he or she would also reflect upon who is it that insulted them, and why those others may so give up on him and her. In this case, insults themselves may convey little information, but the fact that insults are made may convey a great deal of information.

---

(November 21, 2017 at 2:32 am)shadow Wrote: Uh huh. Because self-reflection and intellectual curiosity is usually someone's reaction to an overwhelming gang of haters in a hostile situation.

Attributing insult to a simplistic “gang of haters” is a reflective defensive reaction, not the reaction of the truly curious.

.

(November 21, 2017 at 2:46 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 2:05 am)shadow Wrote: So you think Republicans, upon reading 'Republicunt', will reflect upon their views and decide to become Democrats instead?

No, insult by itself is unlikely to change the views of the insulted.  

However, if the insulted is in any way salvageable, and has been triggered by other experiences to reflect upon his or her views, then if he or she actually has the mental curiosity to actually make the reflection an potentially profitable exercise, then the chances are he or she would also reflect upon who is it that insulted them, and why those others may so give up on him and her.   In this case, insults themselves may convey little information, but the fact that insults are made may convey a great deal of information.

Understandable point, but in this case I can't imagine insults having that effect because the parties involved are too large. For example, as an atheistic heathen I expect that there are billions of people on this planet who would hate me for my views. Billions. That does nothing to make me think they are right.
Same goes for any religious group - all are minorities, so there are billions of people who would have reason to hate each and every person on the planet. With this kind of multicotomy, hate alone is not enough. You need something else.... persuasion. Be credible and respectable, back up your views with reason, present them in a way that makes people want to listen. That's effective.

For what it's worth... I don't know if I've ever changed my behavior because of being insulted. I would say I have plenty of mental curiosity but insults do nothing but put me more on the defensive.

When Republicans think "Being a Pedophile" is less of a downside than "being a democrat" what are you supposed to do?

They get it from their fuhrer.  Finally, the WLB comes out of the closet and backs Moore.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/trump-d...legations/

Quote:Trump defends Senate candidate Moore despite misconduct allegations

Perverts of a feather, you know. 

Sleazy cocksuckers.

(November 21, 2017 at 5:58 pm)Cecelia Wrote: When Republicans think "Being a Pedophile" is less of a downside than "being a democrat" what are you supposed to do?

There's a practicality to it.  In congress, when everyone is just voting party lines, the individuals themselves are mostly unimportant.  Child molester, murderer, saint.  It's all 1 vote.  The pedo aspect doesn't really impact the governing aspect in this case.  The only thing that matters is democrat or republican.

Now as a society, you want to punish the behavior.  From that perspective, you don't want to see the person put in congress.  But our system is goofy enough, that this is the choice people are somehow left with. 

Although, in Alabama, I think this sort of thing just isn't as frowned upon as it is elsewhere.  A shortcoming of a truly representative government.

Roy Moore is a pretty creepy guy even without the allegations against him. That Republicans can support someone like him AFTER the allegations just makes them disgusting people. Why should I think ANYTHING of people supporting this guy, just because it's 'practical'. Especially when on top of that you have them supporting the KKK, the Confederacy, and Nazi's. How people can't look at themselves in the mirror and ask "Why do I share views with such people?" is just appalling.

(November 21, 2017 at 6:21 pm)Cecelia Wrote: ...on top of that you have them supporting the KKK, the Confederacy, and Nazi's.  How people can't look at themselves in the mirror and ask "Why do I share views with such people?"  is just appalling.

None of that is true. The Republican party does not support any of the groups you mentioned. You must be thinking of the Democratic party which passed all the Southern Jim Crow laws and had a Senator that was a former Klan leader. And I guess in your world people who love their dogs are Nazi because Hitler also loved his dog.

(November 21, 2017 at 7:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: None of that is true. The Republican party does not support any of the groups you mentioned. You must be thinking of the Democratic party which passed all the Southern Jim Crow laws and had a Senator that was a former Klan leader. And I guess in your world people who love their dogs are Nazi because Hitler also loved his dog.

You obviously missed the moment when the parties switched places, and the Republicans became the party of the KKK, and the Democrats became the party of the people.

No, I don't think people who love their dogs are Nazi's because Hitler loved dogs.  I think people who defend Nazis are Nazi's because Nazi's are indefensible, therefore only a Nazi would defend a Nazi.  And of course Donald Trump defended Nazi's (as well as White Supremacists).  And it wasn't Democrats down in Charlottesville marching alongside the Nazi's. It wasn't Democrats who killed Heather Heyer, and it wasn't Democrats who defended the guy who killed Heather Heyer.

It's funny how you can in one hand call the Democrats the party of Jim Crow and the South, and in the next venerate the confederacy.