Joe Rogan IG Post, a Mind Infected by Ideology

[How to be wise]

16 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@How to be wise

   If it is logically true that weak men produce bad times, and bad times produce strong men, that weak men produce strong men, then the logic is true.

If weak men produce strong men, why is a right winger like you complaining?

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

7 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

If weak men produce strong men, why is a right winger like you complaining?

   Firstly, you assuming I'm a right winger is incorrect, and you assuming that I'm complaining is incorrect. Instead of refuting my points directly, you attack a caricature of me about my position that's false and and my mood that's false. Talk about the main topic first instead of me and less about whatever false  assumptions you have instead.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Danioover9000

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

As you see here, in fact both your post and his are in agreement with each other.

Joel is saying the system reflects the will of the people, while Doc is pointing out the disproportional influence of rural states. How are those two points in agreement?

[How to be wise]

@Danioover9000 It’s pretty clear from your previous posts that you are a diehard conservative right winger. I don’t know why you’re pretending to be otherwise. If you’re scared that we are going to eat you alive here, then you should be.

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

4 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

@Danioover9000 It’s pretty clear from your previous posts that you are a diehard conservative right winger. I don’t know why you’re pretending to be otherwise. If you’re scared that we are going to eat you alive here, then you should be.

   I'm a centrist conservative, not a die hard conservative 'right winger', or whatever caricature you want to fit me in, nor am I pretending to be any other role than the role of a user asking questions and being in a discourse. Also, I think you're in the wrong forum if you're scared of me getting eaten alive, like this isn't a cannibal website, this is a personal development website. Maybe take a break, or seek emotional support if you think I'm in danger, I'm not. 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

20 hours ago, DocWatts said:

If you mean it's still adhering to antiquated and undemocratic institutions that gives a rural minority far too much influence to dictate policy to the rest of the country, then yeah it's doing a bang up job.

You'd almost think this wacky system we're stuck with some two and a half centuries later was designed as a pseudo compromise with rural interests whose primary interest was preserving slavery. Oh, wait.... 

 

23 hours ago, Joel3102 said:

America’s democracy is actually working well, and exactly how it’s designed.

The parties reflect the will of the people. There are a lot of right wing people in the country who don’t want change so the system reflects that 

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Joel is saying the system reflects the will of the people, while Doc is pointing out the disproportional influence of rural states. How are those two points in agreement?

   In Joel's post, he's commenting on the overall democracy of America and how well the American democratic system is working, and stating that the parties involved in the American system reflects the will of the people. He also states about the majority of right wing people in the country not wanting change, therefore the system, America's democratic system, reflects the will of the people. I assume here that he's commenting on the level of consciousness and ideological identity of some political groups of the right, as parts of a collective mind, that resist change. If I was Joel, I would have given more elaboration on what I meant with my statements, plus given some evidence on my part to prove that America's democracy is working well.  

   In Doc's post, the entire first statement starts with a condition if statement. Doc assumes Joel's post means the following: the system adhering to 'antiquated' and 'undemocratic institutions', that give a 'rural minority' 'far too much influence' to 'dictate policy' to the rest of the country(the USA), then 'yeah it's doing a bang up job', followed by an image of the USA and I'm assuming it's showing actual figures about the population and senators. Notice that words I quoted here are not present in Joel's post, there Doc is not only assuming what Joel exactly meant, Doc is also abstracting from Joel's post as if it means more, when in exactly means what the post is worded. The biggest problem with Doc's post is that he starts assuming what Joel meant, when in fact he could only give an estimation as to what he likely meant, because of how general Joel's post is. If I was Doc, I would have started asking for Joel to clarify what he actually means in his post first, rather than conclude what he most likely meant, give additional meaning from abstraction, and follow up with some nebulous statement that is either sarcastic or a oddly placed praise of America's democracy doing a 'bang up job' and some image I  find questionable, almost as questionable as Joe Rogan's post on the political image.

    How the two points are in agreement? Both user's comments are, and I'm assuming, are implicitly talking about collective consciousness of America's political parties, in it's democratic system. That's the agreement between the two relatively speaking, but explicitly and literally speaking, the two points are largely different. As to if Joel act ally meant what Doc thinks he meant, or if Doc's assumption is correct, that needs clarity.

[Carl-Richard]

@Danioover9000 I feel like I'm reading Kant or something. Can you give me a tl;dr?

[DocWatts]

@Danioover9000 Well that caused more of a stir than I was anticipating.

I'll admit that I was being a bit sarcastic in my rebuttal because I was trying to point out a pretty big potential blindspot in the idea that America is a well functioning democracy whose political process reflects the will of the people, because that view doesn't take in to account serious structural flaws in our representative system.

Didn't literally mean it as : "well you obviously meant the following : ....".

Edited December 5, 2021 by DocWatts

[How to be wise]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

I'm a centrist conservative, 

Conservatives are not welcome in this forum. I’m not going to hide this. Please leave.

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

Conservatives are not welcome in this forum. I’m not going to hide this. Please leave.

Great idea. Let us build a better echochamber.

[Opo]

1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

Conservatives are not welcome in this forum. I’m not going to hide this. Please leave.

[Rilles]

13 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

you assuming I'm a right winger is incorrect

 

10 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

centrist conservative

Conservatives are right-wingers no matter if theyre leaning toward the middle or not. Just own it. Dont be scared. Btw its better to call it Centre-Right leaning and not "centrist conservative".  

Edited December 5, 2021 by Rilles

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

Actually, they are welcome as long as they don't spread hoaxes, aren't closeminded, ideological, and are keeping conversation civil. And debates here shouldn't be about who's winning or losing (cause you're probably not gonna get someone to change their mind anyway), but about comming to a mutual consensus, or at least deepen our understanding of the topics discussed.

Hence the paradox of conservatism. 

Conservatives who aren't close minded, aren't toxic ideologues, and aren't spreading conspiracy theories  should be welcome here.

Yet at the same time growth pushes people away from conservativism, hence why open minded conservatism is a rare thing.

Open minded conservatism is almost a contradiction in terms actually, as conservativism is sustained by a mistrust and skepticism of diverse ideas and perspectives. Conservatism and open mindedness are quite difficult to make parsimonious, and in my own experience some degree of compartmentalization is required for both to co-exist in the same person.

I should know, I was a libertarian leaning conservative myself when I was much younger. So I can attest that this worldview is egoicly fragile, and is threatened by outside perspectives which have the potential of sewing the seeds of cognitive dissonance. 

That's not to say that egoic fragility is exclusive to conservative ideologies, just that it's far more acute there than for ideologies higher up on the Spiral. Liberalism (and many Left wing ideologies) also suffer from this, just to a lesser degree. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by DocWatts

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Danioover9000 I feel like I'm reading Kant or something. Can you give me a tl;dr?

Joel was talking about bananas, Doc was talking about oranges. Both points mostly different, but both agree that they are talking about fruits.

[Danioover9000]

@DocWatts

12 hours ago, DocWatts said:

@Danioover9000 Well that caused more of a stir than I was anticipating.

I'll admit that I was being a bit sarcastic in my rebuttal because I was trying to point out a pretty big potential blindspot in the idea that America is a well functioning democracy whose political process reflects the will of the people, because that view doesn't take in to account serious structural flaws in our representative system.

Didn't literally mean it as : "well you obviously meant the following : ....".

   Well ok. It's just more better if you asked him some questions to see if Joel has a blind spot, because just taking his/her post at face value, there's no hard evidence as to suggest that the user has a blind spot to America's well functioning democracy which reflects the will of the people. Joel's post is in my view way too vague to reasonably conclude that Joel's view doesn't take into account structural flaws in America's representative system. There's lack of proofs, examples and elaboration in Joel's part to rebuttal sarcastically and to assume he was also being sarcastic himself. It's so vague it doesn't literally include America's structural flaws in it's representative system.

   My assumption was he's just stating the current political situation, and concluding from the present state of America's politics, America's collective ego, and him stating how America's democracy is working as intended, due to the will of the people, was making a comment on the present state of minds of the American people's psyche. It's likely he meant that, but I could be wrong in assuming that as well until he himself clarifies his post and it's intended meaning.

   I didn't mean to cause such a stir myself, I just spotted some inconsistency from both you and Joel's posts worth pointing out.  

[Danioover9000]

@Rilles

4 hours ago, Rilles said:

 

Conservatives are right-wingers no matter if theyre leaning toward the middle or not. Just own it. Dont be scared. Btw its better to call it Centre-Right leaning and not "centrist conservative".  

   I think the degree to which a conservative is a right winger matters a lot, that it's insufficient to label all Conservatives as right wing, in fact some conservatives lean not just far right, or in the middle, but on the left in regards to certain policies the group/person in question wishes to get implemented. The reason why the degree to which one conservative is leaning towards in the political spectrum matters is because there's more estimation as to the likely policies that particular conservative wishes to enable, and is reflective of how complex politics can be because there are a lot of diverse political ideologies out there.

   It's incorrect for you to assume I don't own my political position, nor the state of emotion behind it. You are straw manning me by assuming incorrect things of me, without providing proofs and an explanation as to why you think I'm scared and have little ownership of my view.

   I'm right center-leaning, or more accurately an agnostic conservative who leans center and a bit to the left.

[DocWatts]

@Danioover9000 Fair enough, and I could have phrased my response more productively by asking them to articulate their statement in more precise terms before responding.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by DocWatts

[Danioover9000]

@Knowledge Hoarder

3 hours ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

Actually, they are welcome as long as they don't spread hoaxes, aren't closeminded, ideological, and are keeping conversation civil. And debates here shouldn't be about who's winning or losing (cause you're probably not gonna get someone to change their mind anyway), but about comming to a mutual consensus, or at least deepen our understanding of the topics discussed.

   I definitely agree, as long as they can explain their views, provide examples and evidence for their views, while keeping the discussion as civil as they can in their end, they should be welcome here, or in another part of the forum. I actually think that most users here who say they're conservatives, are actually more identified as nationalists, ethno or religious nationals and fascists, who keep finding ways to bend or break some guidelines, and then point the blame to being conservative, and then people think it's all conservatives to blame.

[How to be wise]

@Danioover9000 Did you vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020?

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

6 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

@Danioover9000 Did you vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020?

   I'm not American.

   How to be wise: shit posting to infinity with false assumptions.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Danioover9000