[jonottawa]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-21, 14:24, said:

Well, you have done it. I give up. It isn't that I am insulted, my feelings aren't hurt, but it has been years since I have encountered a more unrelentingly unpleasant person. I'm gone, and I suspect it won't be long before you can have this all to yourself. I am not saying you are right, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I am done listening to anything that you have to say.

That's called cognitive dissonance. (I wish you wouldn't hide behind the excuse of 'unrelenting unpleasantness' when you've seen (and not commented on) the bile directed my (and Kaitlyn's) way in this thread, with virtually no comparable response. But whatever floats your boat.) And yes, like the SIGN SAYS, the truth can be unpleasant. Even unrelentingly unpleasant.

https://en.wikipedia...tive_dissonance



Let me repeat again what I've said repeatedly: I am not here to 'change the minds' of those living in 'the Bubble' (see SNL sketch from the previous page.) I'm here to present solid arguments (interspersed with humor) so that an open-minded person can see the truth, or at least learn something that brings them closer to the truth. If people say vicious things to me, I tend to ignore it. Because I believe that reflects more on them than it does on me (and because they're probably doing it in part to either get my attention or an emotional reaction.)

[mikeh]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-21, 14:43, said:

That's called cognitive dissonance. (I wish you wouldn't hide behind the excuse of 'unrelenting unpleasantness' when you've seen (and not commented on) the bile directed my (and Kaitlyn's) way in this thread, with virtually no comparable response. But whatever floats your boat.)

https://en.wikipedia...tive_dissonance



Let me repeat again what I've said repeatedly: I am not here to 'change the minds' of those living in 'the Bubble' (see SNL sketch from the previous page.) I'm here to present solid arguments (interspersed with humor) so that an open-minded person can see the truth, or at least learn something that brings them closer to the truth. If people say vicious things to me, I tend to ignore it. Because I believe that reflects more on them than it does on me (and because they're probably doing it in part to either get my attention or an emotional reaction.)

You do realize that kenberg is one of the most level-headed, even-tempered and balanced posters we have?

As for humour....really? It is ironic that you, of all people, claim to be using humour, and that you complain about people saying vicious things to you and Kaitlyn. You quoted a definition of cognitive dissonance. Maybe you should look up 'projection' as a psychological term.

Oh, don't bother: you won't understand how it applies to you anyway....you'll just claim that it applies to the rest of us. Which actually really would be funny.

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-21, 15:01, said:

You do realize that kenberg is one of the most level-headed, even-tempered and balanced posters we have?

Yes, that's why I gave him the courtesy of a reply. Hopefully he'll return my courtesy by acknowledging the truthfulness of my reply, but maybe he's 'gone.'

 mikeh, on 2016-November-21, 15:01, said:

As for humour....really? It is ironic that you, of all people, claim to be using humour,

You don't think the SNL bit was intended as humorous? You don't think most of the cartoons I post are intended to be humorous? Please tell me you're joking (did you get that one at least?)

 mikeh, on 2016-November-21, 15:01, said:

and that you complain about people saying vicious things to you and Kaitlyn.

There you go being intellectually dishonest again. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

I wasn't saying "WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, someone on the Internet said something mean to me!" (Which is what you're implying.) I was responding to someone who accused me of being 'unrelentingly unpleasant' (because I used a little sarcasm?) by pointing out that he didn't have a lot to say when I was called all kinds of (incredibly) unpleasant nonsense. I was pointing out his double standard. Do you understand now?

 mikeh, on 2016-November-21, 15:01, said:

You quoted a definition of cognitive dissonance. Maybe you should look up 'projection' as a psychological term.

Oh, don't bother: you won't understand how it applies to you anyway....you'll just claim that it applies to the rest of us. Which actually really would be funny.

Because it doesn't apply to me. Because people like you can be as 'unrelentingly unpleasant' towards me as you like. But then PLEASE don't turn around and complain about how my occasional sarcasm has driven you to despondency. Be intellectually honest. Don't be a hypocrite. TIA

[jonottawa]

It's funny, I went to search through kenberg's recent posts (just to make sure that he hadn't actually spoken out against the incivility/name-calling in this thread) and NONE of them from this thread appeared. Is this thread on Double-Secret Probation?

[Winstonm]

Besides all the other concerns with a Monty-Hall-Let's-Make-A-Deal Trump presidency, I can't help but also worry that with a Republican Congress,this,, only on a grand scale, is right around the corner.

Quote

Today, the state’s budget hole is $345 million and threatens the foundation of this state, which was supposed to be the setting for a grand economic expansion but now more closely resembles a battleground, with accusations and lawsuits flying over how to get the state’s finances in order.

The yawning deficits were caused by huge tax cuts, championed by Brownback and the Republican-dominated Legislature, that were supposed set the economy roaring. They didn’t.

Of course, the blame will fall on entitlements, so Social Security and Medicare recipients had best start lobbying hard now.

[Kaitlyn S]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-21, 14:24, said:

Well, you have done it. I give up. It isn't that I am insulted, my feelings aren't hurt, but it has been years since I have encountered a more unrelentingly unpleasant person. I'm gone, and I suspect it won't be long before you can have this all to yourself. I am not saying you are right, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I am done listening to anything that you have to say.

I like most of your posts, Ken, but TBH if I had to think of the most unpleasant person in the Water Cooler, it would not be Jon. While I think he might be abrasive to those who don't agree with him, I get the feeling that he's willing to start an honest conversation about any of the topics he discusses.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-21, 14:24, said:

Well, you have done it. I give up. It isn't that I am insulted, my feelings aren't hurt, but it has been years since I have encountered a more unrelentingly unpleasant person. I'm gone, and I suspect it won't be long before you can have this all to yourself. I am not saying you are right, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I am done listening to anything that you have to say.

Ken,

Now, perhaps, you understand why I initially labeled Trump supporters "stupid". It's not exactly the correct term - but it's close enough.

[PassedOut]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-21, 14:05, said:

From what I'm reading in this thread, I think some folks believe that All in the Family was a documentary. Let's contrast criminals on a fictional TV show (with a regressive leftist political agenda) with criminals in real life, shall we?

Chicago police said they are investigating an battery caught on video that stemmed from a traffic-related altercation — not from discussing politics.

Quote

CLAIM: A white man was beaten by a group of black people for voting Trump.

WHAT'S TRUE: Chicago police are investigating a battery incident involving a 50-year-old white male victim who was attacked by five black males and females.

WHAT'S FALSE: Police say the incident stemmed from a traffic altercation, not politics.

ORIGIN: On 10 November 2016, conspiracy theory web site InfoWars posted a video of a white man being pushed and kicked by a group of younger African-American people. (The article bore the inflammatory headline, "SHOCK VIDEO: BLACK MOB VICIOUSLY BEATS WHITE TRUMP VOTER.")

The roughly 30-second video shows an older white man in a blue sweatshirt getting pushed to the ground and kicked by the younger people, while several people can be heard off-camera accusing him of voting for Donald Trump.

Chicago police told us that officers responded to a battery call on 9 November 2016 in which the 50-year-old victim reported being battered in a traffic-related altercation involving three unidentified males and two females — one of whom drove away in the man's car.

Bad enough without the deceptive title. The election was November 8th.

[ggwhiz]

Curious how things can go so wrong and so right sooo close together. The female 1/2 of the Snopes founders is also a former Ottawa Bridge player.

[kenberg]

Not for the firt time, but I hope not habitually, I seem to have made myself a topic. Let me try to explain.

Sometime back, Cherdano took me to task for something, right mnow I forget what it was, and he said I should read more TNC.
"What's that", I asked.
Ta-Nahisi Coates I learned. So I read some. I wasn't impressed, but I learned a bit.
I had NPR on while riding with Becky and he (TNC, not Cherdano) was being interviewed.
"Who is that?" asked Becky. I explained as best I could in a neutral voice, using the knowledge from BBF that he was a Black Intellectual of note.
"Maybe he writes better than he speaks" said Becky.

The point here is not whether I agree with Cherdano or with TNC, it is that I learn something. I don't learn anything from an old "All in the family" clip.

I had political discussions in elementary school. I can hardly recall a time when friends and I did not discuss politics. I value such discussion. In 1960, when I first voted, it was by no means a given that I would vote for Kennedy. I had a conservative friend who voted for Kennedy, he regarded Kennedy as a conservative. In a way, he was. "Ask not..." has a conservative ring to it.

I think we have some large problems We always do, but maybe this time more so. Just how a person such as myself should look at the Republican dominance is a big question. But I was fine with Eisenhower even though I would have voted for Stevenson. I think the first Bush was quite good. And I voted for the current Republican governor of Maryland. So "Republican" is not really the issue for me. It is Trump. And his friends, and his plans. The country has voted for change, and change we will get. Whether we will like it is another thing entirely.

I am still trying to figure out where this leaves me. I am not going to Canada or anywhere else. I need to think this through.

[jonottawa]

So now we're defending the perpetrators of a hate crime because they attacked a man not because he voted for Trump but just because he's white? Is anyone claiming the audio from the video is staged?

Please DO watch the longer video. It's obviously more disturbing than the shorter video. The man is dragged away as one of his assailants steals his car at the end of the longer video.

I'd like to ask Mike: Does he consider that a hate crime? Or when a group of folks from one ethnic group attacks an individual from another ethnic group because of his race it's only a hate crime if the right races are in the right spots?

And look how biased Snopes is: So desperate to downplay this video that they decide to tell you what The Daily Stormer's reaction was.

Please Snopes, tell me what David Duke said about this video so I can form my own opinion. Unbelievable. The bias and the subterfuge is palpable. Only cognitive dissonance is preventing you from seeing it.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-21, 16:00, said:

I like most of your posts, Ken, but TBH if I had to think of the most unpleasant person in the Water Cooler, it would not be Jon. While I think he might be abrasive to those who don't agree with him, I get the feeling that he's willing to start an honest conversation about any of the topics he discusses.

How ironic that you posted this almost concurrently with the post from PassedOut showing that one of jon's favourite memes is an intentional lie. So jon wants to start an honest conversation by posting one of the more despicable trumpian lies of the immediate post-election period, and you endorse him as an honest person?

I frankly don't expect any more of you. Reality is something to which your opinions have at most a fleeting relationship. I know: it is so horribly vicious of me to call you out on your uninformed fantasies. Wouldn't I be so much nicer if only I stroked your ego rather than challenging you when your bigotry surfaces?

You see, from my point if view, I'd actually enjoy discussing real issues such as how to deal with discrimination, or how to deal with white people who are denied access to education because of racial discrimination (I have ideas on that, but you probably wouldn't like them), or how to control health care costs while preserving choice, or the merits or demerits of socialism v capitalism (I am not a socialist, btw). I can see any argument against same sex marriage....unfortunately, it is an argument against any state recognition of a religious ceremony and in favour of state recognition of financially-bound relationships between two consenting adults, which sort of spoils it for the homophobic community.

I can see rational arguments about how to react to climate change, but since there are no rational arguments for denying that man-influenced climate change is happening, it would be necessary for the debaters to have reality as a starting point, which most republicans and libertarians deny.

There are legitimate conservative ideas out there. But neither you nor jon, nor anyone else here seem to know what they are, or how to articulate conservative points of view based on observable facts. Discussions that start with invoking imbecilic right wing memes are not conducive either to respect or to constructive engagement.


The good news is that, as I predicted, jon's penchant for projection made him unable to resist proving my point

[kenberg]

I did not read about whatever attack may have taken place Perhaps it is the same as one i read earlier. Since I am from Minnesota I had read about the demonstrations in Minneapolis. that closed down (briefly I think) the interstate there. The article mentioned an attack on a white guy accused of being a Trump supporter. The guy said he had not voted for Trump. The attackers said that white people voted for trump. he said he was gay and wouldn't vote for Trump. So they attacked him anyway and called him names referring to his gayness.

What do you want to know about me in this regard? Do you want to know whether I support this or condemn this? Please. We are wasting time and good space on the forum. I do not favor beating people up. Do I really have to say this?

And yes, of course it is irrelevant whether the guy was telling the truth about not voting for Trump. Again, I shouold not have to say this. This is what I find so completely off-putting about the course this thread has taken

[nige1]

 kenberg, on 2016-November-21, 17:39, said:

I did not read about whatever attack may have taken place Perhaps it is the same as one i read earlier. Since I am from Minnesota I had read about the demonstrations in Minneapolis. that closed down (briefly I think) te interstate there. The article mentioned an attack on a white guy accused of being a Trump supporter. The guy said he had not voted for Trump. The attackers siad that whiite people voted for trump. he said he was gay and wouldn't vote for Trump. So they attacked him anyway and called him names referring to his gayness.

What do you want to know about me in this regard? Do you want to know whether I support this or condemn this? Please. We are wasting and good space on the forum. I do not favor beating people up. Do I really have to say this?

And yes, of course it is irrelevant whether the guy was telling the truth about not voting for Trump. Again, I shouold not have to say this. This is what I find so completely off-putting about the course this thread has taken

Welcome back, Ken Some of us prefer to discuss issues on a basis of fact and reason -- rather than straw-men, impugning motives, and so on. Judged by such criteria, Kaitlyn S and JohOttowa seem more sinned against than sinning -- however controversial their opinions.

[jonottawa]

I think Mike must be used to dealing with really unintelligent juries (forgive me if that's redundant.)

He accuses me of something, and then does the old 'oh, he won't know how it applies to him anyway.'

And then when I explain to him in a very simple, logical, brief, straightforward way why his argument (which he knew was bogus when he made it) is completely bogus he does the old 'Ha! He proved my point!'

Mike, if someone were to accuse you of something, like being a murderer, or a rapist, or a pedophile, or a sociopath or an adulterer and then followed that up with 'oh, he won't know how that applies to him anyway' your denying the accusation wouldn't prove your accuser's point about anything. Though if your accuser crows 'Ha! He proved my point!' it might prove that your accuser argues like a grade-schooler.

Either substantiate your accusation that by pointing out kenberg's double standard I am projecting, or withdraw it. Or just keep being intellectually dishonest. Whatever floats your boat.

As for the video of the hate crime, whether the man was beaten because he was white, or because he was a Trump supporter, it was an appalling crime and I'm still waiting to hear which motive you think is more plausible.

Mike's sophistry is so transparent that it reminds me of:



FWIW, here's my favorite piece of sophistry:

[PassedOut]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-21, 17:19, said:

So now we're defending the perpetrators of a hate crime because they attacked a man not because he voted for Trump but just because he's white? Is anyone claiming the audio from the video is staged?

I said that the event was bad enough without the deceptive title. A hate crime by blacks against whites is just as bad as a hate crime of whites against blacks.

The problem I had is that the title was a gratuitous lie, and you posted the video regardless. And the reason I checked at all was because you posted it, and you have shown a habit of posting items that are completely fake or purposely misleading. When I see something like that from you, my reaction is, "What's he trying to pull this time?"

[Kaitlyn S]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-21, 15:16, said:

(talking about cognitive dissonance)

Because it doesn't apply to me.

I don't think any of us can be sure that it doesn't apply to us. If I had to guess, I think both sides suffer from cognitive dissonance as you described it.

It's unlikely that we are right about every point, and it's unlikely that they are right about every point. There are some very smart people on both sides of this article (I'm talking nationally, just not here.)

We clearly don't know which issues we are wrong about because if you take them one at a time, we think we're more likely to be right about each one.

However, even if we are wrong about one issue, we are indeed suffering from cognitive dissonance - we believe something and it's hard to shake that belief.

Look at it this way, take an issue, any issue. One of two things is true - what we believe is right because it is right, or it isn't right and we've been convinced that it is right and are our belief is firmly entrenched. Our beliefs are going to be reinforced by conservative leaning publications, news programs, and websites which will continually "prove" we are right. Their beliefs are going to be reinforced by liberal leaning publications, news programs, and websites which will continually "prove" that they are right. On any issue, only one side (or neither as the truth may lie in the middle) can be right. It would be pompous for us to think that we are right on every single issue. It is equally as pompous for them to think that they are right on every single issue. It is more likely that both sides are suffering from cognitive dissonance. One would have to be arrogant to assume otherwise.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-21, 17:22, said:

You see, from my point if view, I'd actually enjoy discussing real issues such as how to deal with discrimination, or how to deal with white people who are denied access to education because of racial discrimination (I have ideas on that, but you probably wouldn't like them), or how to control health care costs while preserving choice, or the merits or demerits of socialism v capitalism (I am not a socialist, btw).

So would I. Let's do it.

It might be delayed a bit because there's something going on in Orlando this week not too far from me.

Signed - "I'm all done with tournament bridge" Kaitlyn

[olegru]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-21, 23:17, said:

I said that the event was bad enough without the deceptive title. A hate crime by blacks against whites is just as bad as a hate crime of whites against blacks.
The problem I had is that the title was a gratuitous lie ...

I don't think it is the worst problem. Titles always design to cause the attention and how much is the distance between reality and the title of that video is not clear. At least it is not clear for me, I saw video without checking the title. It speaks very loud for itself. And another video from Jonathan with girls from California school too.

The main problem I see is that, according your source, clear "hate" case was labeled as a road rage and liberals simply ignore it.

Now imagine sides were reversed. Would you have any doubts it would be labeled as a "hate" crime?
We would have riots with many cars put in flame; apologies from top officials, and couple of policemen killed by "concerned citizens."
Our statistics manipulated based on political interests. It less and less reflects reality.
Not only from race relationship, take unemployment, for example.
We are basing our opinions and government bases its decisions on the bad data. On the intentionally bad data.
This is the problem I have.

[kenberg]

Ok, so I watched the video. Seems to be along the lines of what the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported as happening there.

I would much rather we did not focus on videos of people being beaten. I assume nobody is on favor of people being beaten.

Discussion of hate crimes follows a predictable path. I can imagine the trial. As far as I know, beating someone up for how he voted is not on the hate crimes list, doing so based on ethnicity is. So I am a juror, the attackers are being prosecuted for a hate crime, their defense is that they didn't beat the guy up for ethnic reasons, they beat him up because of how he voted, or how they think he voted. the difference in sentencing is substantial so i have to judge the truth here. It's a lot easier on me the juror if I only have to judge whether they did or did not beat the guy up. We can probably agree the video, if it is authenticated, is strong enough evidence to convict them of the assault. I don't plan to study it in detail but it looked pretty vicious and it involved more than one attacker. Of course if I were the juror I would be prepared to listen to what immediately preceded the attack, but I expect I would find the assailants guilty and if assault comes in degrees I expect I would find them guilty of something severe. although no deadly force was attempted as far as I can see. Based on the video, but only based on that, I would expect the attackers to be convicted of a felony and to serve a term in jail. Maybe six months to a year in jail, enough to get their attention.. This seems about right to me whether it was road rage, or because he voted for Trump, or because he is white, or because anything else. I have no great interest in why they did it. If the injuries are severe, a longer sentence could be right. The guy is going to have some nightmares, at the least.


Now if evidence were to be produced that the guy who got beaten had, earlier on, instigated this conflict (voting for Trump does not count as instigation, using his car earlier as a weapon would) then I could change my mind.


I don't like these videos. A person learns to be careful about jumping to conclusions. If I am a juror, it is my obligation to listen to the whole story and then judge. If I am an observer of a ten second video, find it best to avoid judgment. This looks bad, it probably was bad, but I can hold off on drawing a binding conclusion until I see the police report and read the sworn testimony.

When I was in high school someone came by to tell me how lucky I was. This older student was going to beat me up, he was known to be quite vicious, but since he was already on probation for auto theft he decided against it. I am in favor of legal consequences for beating people up.

As in Duh.