Why no posting in section “Politics Religion…?”

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love to hear other's opinions, "ill-informed" or not. Differences are what makes the world go round.
I like to engage in discussion, it can lead to a better understanding of the world. Telling someone their opinions are uninformed is not constructive, it's just empty rhetoric, a way to run away from conversation, and potentially makes people angry.

Most people cannot cope with hearing opinions they disagree with. Finding out why they hold those opinions can be interesting. If they think drugs should not be legalised, and their friend died from heroin use, it's not so surprising a view. The problem is that most people cling to simple slogans and don't go into issues in depth. I'm sure I do that in some areas. It is possible to learn more about an issue, and continue to hold a view or change that view. For example, I used to favour cannabis use and legalisation. I now oppose its use, as it is psychologically and physically harmful. However, I still think legalisation is probably the least bad option. I'm not saying I'm right, just that it is my current view, and I am open to hearing other views. However, most people don't get beyond "drugs kill".

This is an infamous example of a social commentator getting angry and storming out of an interview like a little child:



This is a shortened highlights version:



Hitchens is known for talking over people, and being opinionated and rude.
 
Last edited:
Used to be an old saying.... "Honorable men can disagree."
Many years ago, you could discuss politics with folks who disagreed with you. It was an actual discussion. Nowadays folks just shout at each other instead of talking to each other. And sorry, but it has been that way for nearly 2 decades now.
 
I used to favour cannabis use and legalisation. I now oppose its use, as it is psychologically and physically harmful. However, I still think legalisation is probably the least bad option.

Given the above that I've put in bold, you must certainly be straight edge then?



Hitchens is known for talking over people, and being opinionated and rude

Interesting that you chose Hitchens, whose brother I feel certain folks found rather "opinionated and rude," but rather walked over those same folks with logic and sound reasoning. The term "Hitch slap" exists for a reason. 🙂
 
Given the above that I've put in bold, you must certainly be straight edge then?
If by that you mean that I abstain from alcohol and other legal drugs, no, you are mistaken. The world is not black and white. I recently read a book by someone who worked as an undercover drugs police officer. It is fascinating reading. Hard drugs cause misery and death, but prohibition allows powerful and violent criminal gangs to make huge amounts of money from drugs, and cause massive harm to society including killing people and corrupting the police and society. There are strong arguments against legalisation of such drugs, but equally there are strong arguments against the current approach. Unfortunately discussions of these issues are usually if not always very confrontational and unilluminating.
Interesting that you chose Hitchens, whose brother I feel certain folks found rather "opinionated and rude," but rather walked over those same folks with logic and sound reasoning. The term "Hitch slap" exists for a reason. 🙂
That illustrates the point made by several people here. The supporters of Christopher Hitchens and his views sees him as walking over his opponents with logic and sound reasoning. Others see him as opinionated. He seemed intelligent, well read and charming to me. But also overly sure of his own cleverness. These days YouTube is full of such people, albeit usually less charming and less erudite, all preaching to their adoring followers. YouTube and other social platforms make lots of money from advertisers (the customers) by feeding videos to users (the feedstuff), encouraging the latter to live in echo chambers, and creating societal polarisation. There seems to be a lack of willingness to see other points of view. That scares me, as I have the impression that social media is promoting stupidity and ignorance. I don't know if any studies have been carried out to see whether or not stupidity and ignorance, or at least social polarisation, are increasing.

As for Peter Hitchens, someone once described him as the stupid person's intellectual. From what I have seen, he holds very socially conservative views and looks back fondly on an idealised Victorian era of good discipline and social virtue. His views seems to be held for emotional reasons, and not based on logic and reason. He is also, in my view, a dreadful bully, unlike his bully.
 
Last edited:
These discussions are not new. It's just that the internet has allowed them to become a faceless public square. "Keyboard warriors" some will say. And this whole social media concept is simply a lightning fast public square.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates were a new breed of political dialog thanks to railroads, the telegraph and stenographers.

It's always been easy to get one side or the other whipped into a frenzy. WW1 was the result of a famous guy being assasinated. Meanwhile a few rich guys pooled their money and made huge profits by financing one side or the other.

At one point a group of religious leaders were able to stir up enough angst of a crowd against a guy who spoke against them that when put to a voice vote agreed to let a convicted murderer go free over the guy who had only used words. So that whole 'sticks n stones will break bones but words will never hurt you' mght be a good rule on the childrens playground but they got one famous guy nailed to a cross way back when.

The thing about political speech in America is it often began with so called good intentions. Stop injustice or even tyranny.
 
Oh yeah, social media is definitely promoting stupidity and ignorance as well. As proof, I offer up the Tik-Tok trend that was popular a year or two ago called "Boint Gun at Benis."

A challenge where you Boint a handgun at your own Benis, and then squeeze the trigger a bit. The goal is to NOT cause the gun to go off, while Bointing it at your own Benis. Yes, the weapon has to be loaded with a round in the chamber! You'd think young men would not be stupid enough to participate in such a challenge. You'd be horribly, horribly wrong! Documented cases of young men, putting Pullets into their own Benises, as well as one of their Palls. The "lucky" ones suffered amputation of what was left of their obliterated Pall.

I rest my case.
 
These discussions are not new. It's just that the internet has allowed them to become a faceless public square. "Keyboard warriors" some will say. And this whole social media concept is simply a lightning fast public square.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates were a new breed of political dialog thanks to railroads, the telegraph and stenographers.
The difference is that those were debates, not one person putting forward their viewpoint unchallenged, as we see today.
It's always been easy to get one side or the other whipped into a frenzy. WW1 was the result of a famous guy being assasinated.
Historians would say that the causes were complex.
Meanwhile a few rich guys pooled their money and made huge profits by financing one side or the other.

At one point a group of religious leaders were able to stir up enough angst of a crowd against a guy who spoke against them that when put to a voice vote agreed to let a convicted murderer go free over the guy who had only used words. So that whole 'sticks n stones will break bones but words will never hurt you' mght be a good rule on the childrens playground but they got one famous guy nailed to a cross way back when.

The thing about political speech in America is it often began with so called good intentions. Stop injustice or even tyranny.
What scares me today is that we have identity politics. Activists have destroyed the lives of those who disagree with these ideas. Speak out and you lose your job and livelihood. Arguably Ireland's and Britain's greatest comedy writer Graham Linehan saw his career destroyed for expressing biological fact. He can no longer get work. When he books a theatre to perform, activists force the theatre to cancel. Unfortunately he is not alone. We've seen university professors lose their jobs (one recently won a legal action in the high court), nurses being forced to follow a political creed, and if they don't, they are not allowed to complete their training course. Political beliefs in Britain are supposed to be protected, except that today they're not.

I recently took part in a medical trial. I was asked by a doctor what sex I was assigned at birth. I said it wasn't, my sex was determined at conception and recorded at birth. The doctor and nurse both said "Yes, we know" and sighed. The clear impression was that they disagreed with having to ask the question knowing that it was scientifically absurd, but they had to comply for the sake of their careers.

And we see far right populism with the rise of far right parties in Europe, sometimes financially backed by Russia. Stephen Yaxley Lennon, an English far right agitator with multiple prison sentences including for assault, gets huge publicity on YouTube and elsewhere where he is feted. In the last century a British fsr right neo Nazi party became popular. The leader engaged in a debate on TV with other politicians. They destroyed him, and the party collapsed.

Far right populism is just as simplistic as identity politics, in my view anyway.
 
If by that you mean that I abstain from alcohol and other legal drugs, no, you are mistaken.

Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong (I have been plenty of times)…marijuana is legal, but you oppose its use because it's "psychologically and physically harmful," yet you don't abstain from alcohol (or smoking? Not sure if you do), despite it also being "psychologically and physically harmful?" Many, many studies over many, many years show this to be the case with both (alcohol and smoking).

What is it that differentiates between these legal, adult activities for you?

That illustrates the point made by several people here. The supporters of Christopher Hitchens and his views sees him as walking over his opponents with logic and sound reasoning. Others see him as opinionated. He seemed intelligent, well read and charming to me. But also overly sure of his own cleverness.

While I could be mistaken, I don't think too many people would lump CH in the same boat, or room, or even arena, as multiple YouTubers out there. He existed in a time where people debated face to face and did so well on many platforms. I believe he probably felt sure of his own cleverness because, honestly, he proved it verbally beyond a doubt. Every man is wrong on some, and often many, occasions. Excepting for faith based believers, very few could argue with him though, and even those believers that did often found themselves admitting they had nothing but their faith to fall back on. And as we all know, the onus to prove extraordinary statements and/or beliefs rests upon those making such claims, not on those denying them.
As for Peter Hitchens, someone once described him as the stupid person's intellectual. From what I have seen, he holds very socially conservative views and looks back fondly on an idealised Victorian era of good discipline and social virtue. His views seems to be held for emotional reasons, and not based on logic and reason. He is also, in my view, a dreadful bully, unlike his bully.
I don't know much about PH, other than he seems to have somewhat of the same temperament his brother had, with more perceptible outward anger.
 
The difference is that those were debates, not one person putting forward their viewpoint unchallenged, as we see today.

Historians would say that the causes were complex.

What scares me today is that we have identity politics. Activists have destroyed the lives of those who disagree with these ideas. Speak out and you lose your job and livelihood. Arguably Ireland's and Britain's greatest comedy writer Graham Linehan saw his career destroyed for expressing biological fact. He can no longer get work. When he books a theatre to perform, activists force the theatre to cancel. Unfortunately he is not alone. We've seen university professors lose their jobs (one recently won a legal action in the high court), nurses being forced to follow a political creed, and if they don't, they are not allowed to complete their training course. Political beliefs in Britain are supposed to be protected, except that today they're not.

I recently took part in a medical trial. I was asked by a doctor what sex I was assigned at birth. I said it wasn't, my sex was determined at conception and recorded at birth. The doctor and nurse both said "Yes, we know" and sighed. The clear impression was that they disagreed with having to ask the question knowing that it was scientifically absurd, but they had to comply for the sake of their careers.

And we see far right populism with the rise of far right parties in Europe, sometimes financially backed by Russia. Stephen Yaxley Lennon, an English far right agitator with multiple prison sentences including for assault, gets huge publicity on YouTube and elsewhere where he is feted. In the last century a British fsr right neo Nazi party became popular. The leader engaged in a debate on TV with other politicians. They destroyed him, and the party collapsed.

Far right populism is just as simplistic as identity politics, in my view anyway.
In the days of the US revolution there were two factions. Rebels and loyalists. It is thought that 30% of the population were loyal to the king. Another 30% were for independence. The remaining 40% were thought to just want to live a normal life, whatever that was at the time.

If the loyalists entered a town and saw rebels living there they'd burn their home. While the rebels were fighting elsewhere, if they returned home and found loyalists living nearby they'd burn the loyalists homes.

Fast forward a century and the atrocities that occured over slavery are documented to show that a segment of a population (right or wrong) will commit crimes in the name of their cause. So for some pink haired weirdos to block a highway is nothing compared to what used to take place in the name of a cause.

And btw the Nazi party was a leftist group. Right leans towards conserving the old ways. Far right to the extreme. The left desires change. Far left are looking for extreme changes. Extreme defined by what a population considers normal at any given time.

Back in Lincoln's day the left was for doing away with slavery. The right was for keeping it.
 
I would disagree the Nazi Party was left leaning. In fact, it seems rather obvious they were a far right organization-they were abhorrent racists/antiSemites, they were extremely nationalistic, they were very much anti-Communist, and even more in favor of being a family based system founded on traditional "German" values.

Trying to rewrite history to fit to a preconceived mold is most certainly disingenuous in the least, and blatantly ignorant of facts in the most.

I'm almost certain even a tiny bit of research would show this isn't up for debate, no matter how much "conservatives" don't want to admit the Nazi's shared a lot of similar ideals as they do.
 
@bykfixer
Back in Lincoln's day the left was for doing away with slavery. The right was for keeping it.

Yeah, Lincoln didn't actually want to abolish slavery at first. It was too deeply intrenched in the southern agricultural industry. Major General Cassius Clay played a huge and controversial role in abolishing it tho'. As well others.
 
Back in Lincoln's day to force slave owners to declare their slaves free was about as popular as today's culture being told their automobile has the right decide whether to be their mode of transportation.

It's easy to look back and see how awful it was that it was normal to see another human being as property like a shovel or a lawnmower. But Lincoln was faced with potentially collapsing the fragile still young American economy or allow a bad practice to continue. Politically the wind was not in his favor regarding abolition. Polls showed abolition was not popular in the north either.

Back then America was a group of independent nations much like Europe is today. The central government was simply for providing for the defense of the group. It declared certain dictates but the individual nations generally agreed as long as they had the freedom to decide.

When the national militia began to invade the south many southerners saw that as a call to arms. Many that didn't agree with slavery were definitely against their home country being invaded. Lincoln's miiltary was seen as no different than the king's militia invading.

After the war between the states was over the national government took over as the central authority with states no longer being individual countries. I've been told that Texas was once an independent nation after the civil war treaties were signed, hence the one star red white and blue flag, but don't know that it is still the case.
 
^ You speak the truth. The need and influence of $/industries can be both beneficial and harmful. Supporting or moving against them will make a lot of ppl angry. The bigger the industry, the bigger the risk.

A few states claimed themselves to be "independent republics" regardless of FED government laws uniting us as a nation later. California's flag with the grizzly on it is a nod to that. I don't know them all, but there were several. Hawaii, I think was one also for a while.

States still have some autonomy but have to stay under the Constitution. This can be a double-edged sword.
The US has a lot of hybridized governments working together ...or not so much so.
 
Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong (I have been plenty of times)…marijuana is legal,
Not in Britain, though possession of small amounts is I think ignored.
but you oppose its use because it's "psychologically and physically harmful," yet you don't abstain from alcohol (or smoking? Not sure if you do), despite it also being "psychologically and physically harmful?" Many, many studies over many, many years show this to be the case with both (alcohol and smoking).
Yes tobacco is very harmful, alcohol causes huge suffering, and costs to the state through illness, and violence.
What is it that differentiates between these legal, adult activities for you?
I don't understand what you are struggling with. The scientific evidence is that alcohol is harmful, even in moderation and in exess it is very harmful. However, I enjoy a beer or two on Friday evening, a relatively harmless pleasure. Most consumers enjoy it with little harm. But significant numbers do drink to excess. I see little difference between occasional alcohol consumption and infrequent cannabis consumption. Regular cannabis consumption is however psychologically harmful, and it's little different to being drunk regularly. There are associations with schizophrenia, causation has not been proven. I see children smoking cannabis, it's a scourge.

Drugs are a complex subject. Give heroin addicts pure drugs for free, so they don't steal to fund a habit, and criminal gangs don't profit from them. But making heroin legal would be a big step as it is extremely dangerous. Legalising cannabis would at least remove the criminal gangs, but we don't want children and young people to spend their days bonged out. Not an easy subject at all.

Hopefully you can see that my views are nuanced, and that I am in many ways undecided as to the best approach. I am open to pursuasion.
While I could be mistaken, I don't think too many people would lump CH in the same boat, or room, or even arena, as multiple YouTubers out there. He existed in a time where people debated face to face and did so well on many platforms. I believe he probably felt sure of his own cleverness because, honestly, he proved it verbally beyond a doubt. Every man is wrong on some, and often many, occasions. Excepting for faith based believers, very few could argue with him though, and even those believers that did often found themselves admitting they had nothing but their faith to fall back on. And as we all know, the onus to prove extraordinary statements and/or beliefs rests upon those making such claims, not on those denying them.
Yes he was clever, and eloquent. But often he was expressing his opinion, based on assumptions. If you don't accept those assumptions, then the arguments fall. And you might have a different view on what kind of world you want. There are many similar YouTubers, Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro come to mind. Their fans describe them as wiping the floor with opponents through logic and facts.
I don't know much about PH, other than he seems to have somewhat of the same temperament his brother had, with more perceptible outward anger.
Yes he seems quite angry. From what I have seen, he uses his booming voice to talk over people and shut them up, he's dreadful on panel shows, a boar. He lacks the debating skills and charm of his late brother.
 
I would disagree the Nazi Party was left leaning. In fact, it seems rather obvious they were a far right organization-they were abhorrent racists/antiSemites, they were extremely nationalistic, they were very much anti-Communist, and even more in favor of being a family based system founded on traditional "German" values.
Exactly right. The national socialists were not socialists at all. They were fascists, they used violence to achieve political aims, the Austrian painter was a dictator who was happy to have his opponants killed well before WW2. He was also addicted to prescription drugs, was vegetarian and suffered from flatulence. The Nazis did promote outdoor activities and healthy exercise, so they weren't all bad.

The Soviet Union under Stalin was not so different. And nice little Putin is little more than the leader of a mafia gang that embezzles from the state, kills its opponants, uses criminal gangs to do its dirty work and does its best to destabilise Western democracies.
 
Weed makes you paranoid.

Words spoken from a young woman I knew who turned out to be horribly toxic, with Jim Jones levels of charm and charisma.
 
Exactly right. The national socialists were not socialists at all. They were fascists, they used violence to achieve political aims, the Austrian painter was a dictator who was happy to have his opponants killed well before WW2. He was also addicted to prescription drugs, was vegetarian and suffered from flatulence. The Nazis did promote outdoor activities and healthy exercise, so they weren't all bad.

The Soviet Union under Stalin was not so different. And nice little Putin is little more than the leader of a mafia gang that embezzles from the state, kills its opponants, uses criminal gangs to do its dirty work and does its best to destabilise Western democracies.
Fascism Facts.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top