• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


IvanKaramazov last won the day on October 31 2016

IvanKaramazov had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,615 Excellent

About IvanKaramazov

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Buffalo Bills

Recent Profile Visitors

16,512 profile views
  1. To add to this, let's also keep in mind that while Nixon was a national disgrace and is rightly remembered as a terrible president, he was still highly competent. Ethically, he was a mess, but he was up to the job. Trump is an ethical mess, and he's also in completely over his head.
  2. Cognitive dissonance. Nobody wants to think "I'm just voting for the guy who has an R by his name," so they concoct a rationalization for why the guy isn't really all that bad, or why the other candidate is even worse. Educated folks are really, really good at coming up with these sorts of rationalizations. Stupid people have a harder time doing so. Needless to say, it is also extremely easy to find examples of this behavior among Democrats too. It is a good mental exercise to actively catalog examples of motivated reasoning by people on your own team.
  3. These are actually good, true equivalencies. Trump is what happens when white people decide that identity politics isn't just for minority groups any more. (Trump is also dangerously incompetent, but the next nominee could just as easily be an articulate, well-educated white nationalist).
  4. This is really the key thing for me. The fact that one moron in the GOP lost his #### and beat up a reporter is bad, but not particularly indicative of anything other than the fact that some people really aren't very good folks. But when people start coming out of the woodwork to defend the guy -- and anything less than a full-throated condemnation is essentially a defense -- that's a much more serious problem.
  5. I am extremely confident that people like Robert Dear, Michael Griffin, and Eric Rudolph could have written that last sentence just as sincerely as you did.
  6. Realistically, other people are not going to split these philosophical hairs. People who are prone to lashing out violently at folks who think differently than them are especially not going to reason this through accurately or in good faith. They are going to engage in the same motivated reasoning that has driven folks to hate people in the other tribe.
  7. Are you comfortable with pro-lifers picking up this standard and running with it?
  8. Look at the post directly above yours. People do not generally have to struggle too hard to justify violence against people who they have some reason for disliking. Again, see the Free Speech thread if you need more examples of this phenomenon. Or see the non-reaction to the reporter-punching for another example coming out of the other tribe. Once you say that, yes, violence is okay when it's directed at otherwise-peaceful people whose ideas are "beyond the pale," you are absolutely starting down a slippery slope, because a huge number of people are currently walking around under the impression that people in the other tribe are, in fact, beyond the pale. You are giving pro-life activists a green light to start assassinating doctors who provide abortions, for example. Nationalists think that folks who support sanctuary cities are beyond the pale -- is that where you want to go with this?
  9. See, I don't agree with this premise at all. It's not just that I disagree with it but I see where you're coming from. It strikes me as obviously, self-evidently wrong.
  10. I'm not terribly surprised that this guy won, considering all the early voting that took place. What will be interesting and telling is whether any Republicans call on the House not to seat Gianforte. If we were having this conversation 10-15 years ago, I think it would be pretty obvious that this guy would never serve another day in the House -- he would get the Bob Packwood treatment. But I don't think today's Republicans have the spine to police their own ranks.
  11. These are both part of a very broad, bipartisan pattern of trying to silence people with different views. Many people simply won't listen to other people anymore, or tolerate disagreement. The "free speech" thread is littered with examples, as is the Trump thread.
  12. Here's some rando on the internet endorsing politically-motivated violence. I've said this in the "free speech" thread, but we are going through a period in which both sides would rather just shut the other side up than actually listen to them. Here's another.
  13. I think I should be able to punch Marxists. After all, Marxists have killed way more people than Nazis. And also, it is up to me to determine who is a Marxist and who isn't. I really don't see any way that this could go sideways.
  14. Have fun with that. Unfortunately, I am fairly confident that this won't be the last time I bump this thread.
  15. I don't know? Does it matter? When is violence over political differences acceptable, and are you comfortable with folks on the other side of the aisle going through the same calculus?