Senator Sinema is no longer a Democrat

[Oeaohoo]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

The solution is to create a system where being open minded is much more beneficial than not being open minded. That way the person who is not open minded will be kind of forced to adapt, because if he won't, then he won't have much power in that hypothetical system and not just that, but he will have less power than an open minded person. Of course this assumes, that the system is already in place, the transition part is the tricky question.

That is a nice idea. But, to quote the Boomer classic “Revolution” by The Beatles, “You say you got a real solution / Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan”! 

[AtheisticNonduality]

28 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

However, I do wonder how tenable this sort of thing is as you move away from analysis towards practice. How much tolerance can there really be for intolerance? In material terms, intolerance will tend to overpower tolerance. For example, it two people are talking to each other, one open-minded and the other narrow-minded, it is much easier for the open-minded person to constrict themselves to the constraints of the small mind than vice versa, so that the views of the narrow-minded person will end up dictating everything. What is the solution to this?

The open-minded person has more awareness and presumably more knowledge and intelligence than the close-minded person, so it shouldn't be too hard for the open-minded person (OMP) to lead the fool out of his close-mindedness with a carrot on a stick. Since the OMP understands the larger context the CMP's viewpoint is within / connected to, the OMP can lead a trail out of the CM viewpoint to new insights.

[Tyler Robinson]

13 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That is a nice idea. But, to quote the Boomer classic “Revolution” by The Beatles, “You say you got a real solution / Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan”! 

[DrugsBunny]

18 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

@Oeaohoo how would you define a true Democrat though? 

You'll be hard-pressed to attain a coherent answer on that from @Oeaohoo, the homophobic Q-anon tier conspiracy theorist butt-buddy of @AtheisticNonduality, who both collaborate off-forum specifically to call on one another to defend their posts by bolstering each other's positions so as to give the fabricated impression that their juvenile perspectives hold more merit than they actually have.

This is why, out of the 4 distinct users who expressed alignment with my position, they both chose to go after me specifically -- because I am the one who called out @Oeaohoo's homophobic lunacy in another thread a week back. They will pretend to be "enlightened stage yellow systems thinkers", but if you look closely at their content, it is obvious they are very committed to pedantic posturing and pretentious side-stepping.

Notice that @AtheisticNonduality responded to me with a verbose paragraph about the necessity to engage in cautious epistemic grounding, and claiming that I had missed the nuance being discussed, when if you go back and check, there was no such conversation taking place. He just wanted to use a pompous slew of impressive sounding words which hold no validity in context with my post. Don't be deceived, these people are the lowest of the low intellectually.

[Tyler Robinson]

1 minute ago, DrugsBunny said:

You'll be hard-pressed to attain a coherent answer on that from @Oeaohoo, the homophobic Q-anon tier conspiracy theorist butt-buddy of @AtheisticNonduality, who both collaborate off-forum specifically to call on one another to defend their posts by bolstering each other's positions so as to give the fabricated impression that their juvenile perspectives hold more merit than they actually have.

This is why, out of the 4 distinct users who expressed alignment with my position, they both chose to go after me specifically -- because I am the one who called out @Oeaohoo's homophobic lunacy in another thread a week back. They will pretend to be "enlightened stage yellow systems thinkers", but if you look closely at their content, it is obvious they are very committed to pedantic posturing and pretentious side-stepping.

Notice that @AtheisticNonduality responded to me with a verbose paragraph about the necessity to engage in cautious epistemic grounding, and claiming that I had missed the nuance being discussed, when if you go back and check, there was no such conversation taking place. He just wanted to use a pompous slew of impressive sounding words which hold no validity in context with my post. Don't be deceived, these people are the lowest of the low intellectually.

[AtheisticNonduality]

25 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

I've noticed you very commonly fly off the handle with exaggerated condemnations of people you disagree with. First I'm a "brain-rotted authoritarian" for rejecting homophobia, and now I'm a "mouth-foaming keyboard warrior" for rightfully stating that Sinema betrayed her constituents. 

Unironically yes.

My prescription to you is to stop watching Vaush for 6 months and overall completely isolate yourself from the current political landscape, however ignorant that sounds. Keep the wisdom you learned from being politically partisan, but temporarily try out being apolitical. During this time I recommend you read The Religion of Tomorrow (2017) and Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995) by Ken Wilber.

[AtheisticNonduality]

4 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

Notice that @AtheisticNonduality responded to me with a verbose paragraph about the necessity to engage in cautious epistemic grounding, and claiming that I had missed the nuance being discussed, when if you go back and check, there was no such conversation taking place. He just wanted to use a pompous slew of impressive sounding words which hold no validity in context with my post. Don't be deceived, these people are the lowest of the low intellectually.

No, I just attempting to explain why Leo always rushes to defend moderates or to understand conservatives. But clearly, in your case at least, it was only an attempt.

[Oeaohoo]

25 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

You'll be hard-pressed to attain a coherent answer on that from @Oeaohoo, the homophobic Q-anon tier conspiracy theorist butt-buddy of @AtheisticNonduality, who both collaborate off-forum specifically to call on one another to defend their posts by bolstering each other's positions so as to give the fabricated impression that their juvenile perspectives hold more merit than they actually have.

We’ve never spoken outside of this forum and AtheisticNonduality strongly disagrees with my attitude toward progressivism and related issues. I think you’re actually right about me to an extent, exaggerated accusations of QAnon and crude bigotry aside, but not so much about him. Not to gaslight you with psychologising but I also see a bit of projection here: you are only capable of interacting amicably with people who share your ideological sympathies, so you assume that this is true for everyone else.

What I said above ought to be something you’d agree with anyway. Isn’t your basic fear of the “intolerant” destroying the “tolerant” society that has been created today?

[Hardkill]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, if voters don't like it, they can unelect her in 2 years.

In the end a Senator must work based on her values, not popular outcries. Representative democracy does not mean that Reps are slaves of the voters. This is a common misconception. This is actually wrong. Reps should exercise independent judgment because voters are shallow and have narrow interests.

She's already in serious danger of being unelected according to the polls and many pundits. 

Also, she may not be acting as a slave of the voters, but what about the fact that she has been acting much more of a servant of the rich and corporate donors that she secretly has been working for for years?

It's not just progressives like those on TYT and Secular Talk or what have you who have spoken out on this. Even Sanders, Warren, AOC, Khanna and other progressive politicians in power have constantly spoken out about how Sinema has indeed been legally coerced by the rich and corporate donors into not voting for higher taxes on them. She probably has also been legally coerced by the wealthy and corporate lobbyists into not voting for eliminating or weakening the filibuster, which absolutely needs to happen for the greater good of our country.

You even said last year the very same thing about Manchin even though he understandably has been a very right-wing Democrat from a very conservative state all of his life:

On 12/24/2021 at 5:04 PM, Leo Gura said:

Democrats are also corrupted by lobbying money. The Dem admins have been pretty weak amd neoliberal for the last 30 years.

Clinton and Obama were both neolibs.

Joe Manchin is a fucking Dem who acts like a Repub thanks to the lobby money. Single-handedly stopped a $2 trillion deal. Stuff like this happens all the time.

So, how is that aspect really been any different with Sinema?

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I never said it was good. I merely said she was a centrist.

If politicians had good judgment they would be progressive in today's age.

I understand that political leaders are supposed to be smarter and have a better understanding of governance than the average the voter, but does that mean that politicians aren't ever obligated to vote for any of the policies that they run on during each their campaigns? Does it also mean that they don't ever have to deliver on any of the promises they make as a politician? 

Oh yeah, one more thing. How about the fact that she once said on her Twitter feed long ago that it's conscionable that the federal minimum wage isn't $15, then she deleted that statement from her account as if she never put out that statement, followed by turning her back on that idea or view by unabashedly thumbing down the idea of passing the $15 minimum wage provision via the budget reconciliation process last year when Congress was passing the ARP stimulus?

Edited December 11, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

27 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Also, she may not be acting as a slave of the voters, but what about the fact that she has been acting much more of a servant of the rich and corporate donors that she secretly has been working for for years?

Sure, could be. But that's how many politicians are. Nothing new about that.

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

14 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

@Leo Gura Her independent judgement is shit. I'm trying to imagine the contempt for the working class one must carry to actually use their senate vote to flamboyantly thumbs down a $15 minimum wage. 

Content warning: incredibly cringeworthy crime against humanity seen below

 

@AtheisticNonduality The conflation of blind centrism with "stage yellow/turquoise" has got to be the most pussified sentiment commonly seen on this forum. As if it isn't spineless enough ascribing people's actions to some flimsy colors model instead of precisely articulately your specific grievance with their position. 

@Danioover9000 You rarely have any modicum of a clue what you're talking about when I read your posts. Hitler never betrayed the values he touted when he rose to power. He was very popular in Germany at the time, and he rose to power through the Nazi party by creating a mass movement around the same values that he enacted when he took power.

Communism is an economic system unto itself... No self-contained system, no matter how controversial, can be a traitor to its own values. This is just asinine, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

If, as an embarrassed response, you want to retroactively insist that your use of "traitor" is more loose-ended, or that you simply meant that the subjects in question harmed humanity, then Sinema obviously fits this definition by siding with republicans. 

Your view of the world is insultingly simple. Democrats are supposed to have a 51 - 49 lead in senate seats. Except in actuality, they do not, because Sinema will now side with republicans. You think the constituents who helped get this traitor elected are out of bounds for not giving respectful deference to her callous betrayal? Millions of lives will be affected by her actions.

Honestly dude, your posts never fail to make me cringe to infinity. As if my spiritual development is hindered by calling a spade a spade.

   Thank you, you just emphasized the weaknesses of those who are at Stage orange and are strongly identified as rationalists, atheists and scientists, who are hard core, hyper logical and full of hubris and full of being judgmental.

   The fact you claim that Senator Sinema is a complete traitor means you are at least a Democrat, if not a democrat liberal or progressive, and the idea of a member of your ideological camp leaving for some other camp disturbs you, that you needed to make a post about the situation as a coping mechanism, or to shit talk about a political figure for clicks and trolling is telling about how you are triggered by this situation.

   When I brought up Hitler and Stalin, I'm making a comparison of how different the level of treason is. Stalin made himself appear ideologically aligned with communism, until he saw an opportunity to overtake the party and lead it ruthlessly, thus betraying the principles and values of communism, which is an ideology that arose for the need to make everyone, the monarchs to the peasants, equal, but the principles of selflessness and love and equality were too advanced at that time that was rife with selfishness and survival and revolution, so Stalin defaulted to being a dictator out of necessity, which at the same time betrayed principles of communism. With Hitler, I meant that in the earlier parts of him raising to power, and even before that he felt betrayed by the then German establishment and blamed it on them, and the aftermath of WW1 brought huge inflation rates to Germany that basic survival was much harsher.

   Notice you are straw manning me and every point I'm making as if I'm the deluded one...but not you?

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

12 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

You'll be hard-pressed to attain a coherent answer on that from @Oeaohoo, the homophobic Q-anon tier conspiracy theorist butt-buddy of @AtheisticNonduality, who both collaborate off-forum specifically to call on one another to defend their posts by bolstering each other's positions so as to give the fabricated impression that their juvenile perspectives hold more merit than they actually have.

This is why, out of the 4 distinct users who expressed alignment with my position, they both chose to go after me specifically -- because I am the one who called out @Oeaohoo's homophobic lunacy in another thread a week back. They will pretend to be "enlightened stage yellow systems thinkers", but if you look closely at their content, it is obvious they are very committed to pedantic posturing and pretentious side-stepping.

Notice that @AtheisticNonduality responded to me with a verbose paragraph about the necessity to engage in cautious epistemic grounding, and claiming that I had missed the nuance being discussed, when if you go back and check, there was no such conversation taking place. He just wanted to use a pompous slew of impressive sounding words which hold no validity in context with my post. Don't be deceived, these people are the lowest of the low intellectually.

   Notice here, your use of language to straw man those other users: Name calling, demonization, inflammatory use of language, accusation of a user being a conspiracy theorist knowing the consequences for that user, using hateful words, trolling via refutation and rebuttals, trying to debate and argue and generate heated conversations. You are so hubris that you even try to walk that fine line of what bends or breaks forum guidelines.

[Godhead]

15 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

As if it isn't spineless enough ascribing people's actions to some flimsy colors model instead of precisely articulately your specific grievance with their position. 

Couldn't agree more. If you have criticisms voice them.

"person I agree with good colour person I disagree with bad colour" is just so monkey brained.

15 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

Hitler never betrayed the values he touted when he rose to power.

Not really. Hitler lied to everyone he could to achieve his goals. To the workers, he presented himself as a man of the people and used socialist talking points yet behind their backs he snuggled up with the bourgeoisie and promised that there would be no radical economic reform. In the end, he lied to both.

A Traitor in my book. 

@Danioover9000 However, there are many degrees to being a traitor. It's silly to use the most extreme examples as if that would free someone from their guilt for doing minor traitorous acts. 

[AtheisticNonduality]

5 minutes ago, Godhead said:

"person I agree with good colour person I disagree with bad colour" is just so monkey brained.

It's monkey brain if you don't know what the words mean.

 

[Godhead]

@AtheisticNonduality No, it's monkey brain to ascribe Leo's weak political analysis to being Tier 2. Instead of engaging with the issue and thinking about it independently, he jumps to the conclusion that this is just another example of progressives being unable to see that not everyone is as progressive as them. This is just silly and if you think that this is a holistic approach to politics, you are being silly. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Godhead

[Romanov]

On 12/10/2022 at 2:06 AM, Leo Gura said:

Careful calling moderate politicians traitors.

She's simply a moderate/centrist. Progressives love to demonize centrists even more than Republicans.

What do they call them…”useful idiots?” ??

[Yog]

I like the word Traitor, it has those Warhammer 40k vibes.

But please don't ruin it like the other important words that meant something not long ago. Don't make this one meaningless too.

[AtheisticNonduality]

13 minutes ago, Yog said:

I like the word Traitor, it has those Warhammer 40k vibes.

But please don't ruin it like the other important words that meant something not long ago. Don't make this one meaningless too.

Yep

[Danioover9000]

@Godhead

2 hours ago, Godhead said:

Couldn't agree more. If you have criticisms voice them.

"person I agree with good colour person I disagree with bad colour" is just so monkey brained.

Not really. Hitler lied to everyone he could to achieve his goals. To the workers, he presented himself as a man of the people and used socialist talking points yet behind their backs he snuggled up with the bourgeoisie and promised that there would be no radical economic reform. In the end, he lied to both.

A Traitor in my book. 

@Danioover9000 However, there are many degrees to being a traitor. It's silly to use the most extreme examples as if that would free someone from their guilt for doing minor traitorous acts. 

    I agree, I was using Stalin and Hitler for that specific user, yes there are degrees to being a traitor, along with it being relative to other factors. Universally most people wouldn't consider a child stealing a cookie from the cookie jar as a brutal traitorous snake, so I opted to use a more extreme example instead to compare and contrast claims of senator Sinema being a traitor or not.

 

[Oeaohoo]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

I agree, I was using Stalin and Hitler for that specific user, yes there are degrees to being a traitor, along with it being relative to other factors. Universally most people wouldn't consider a child stealing a cookie from the cookie jar as a brutal traitorous snake, so I opted to use a more extreme example instead to compare and contrast claims of senator Sinema being a traitor or not.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the political revolutionaries of the past century were just straightforward traitors when they betrayed their ideals. One of the reasons that these people were so dangerous is that they were essentially failed artists; art being taken here in a very general sense as the domain of idealism, and politics as the domain of realism. For example, Communism didn’t start from a realistic version of how the world was but with a romantic and poetical vision of how it ought to be. The revolutionaries were able to betray their ideals so frequently because they never really cared about the mundane realities of politics. Any material hypocrisy was warranted so long as it served the cause of the attainment of their ideal world. Of course, in the long run this makes any revolution a sick joke: “In the name of my ideals, I am willing to betray all of my ideals!”

As a failed artist myself, there is a little bit of confession in this analysis…

16 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

@Oeaohoo how would you define a true Democrat though? 

A true Democrat is a Republican who rocked up to the party a few years early. A true Republican is a Democrat who got lost on the way and arrived a few years late!