Politics ( Especially American in modern history ) has always been a nasty, insult filled, dirt throwing fight. Honestly, not much has changed. Actually, it might have gotten better considering that Burr shot Hamilton over a political dispute. But two thing is gone. Unselfish interest and Courtesy. People are blinded by political parties and allegiances.


Take me for example. I hate Socialism. I hate Fascism. I hate extreme Islam. But I would love to meet Hitler, Bin Laden, and Lenin. To pick their brains, to debate, to watch in action. I don't let my personal feelings blind the fact that these men were important figures in their own right. I see people on this site launch personal insults at others all the time or at famous men and women they political disagree with. It makes me sad, it really does because it reminds me of how short-sited and stupid people can be. Politics is just a matter of personal worldview, it doesn't have dictate our personal feelings towards one another. Another example, I disagree with Juq a lot. But I would love to meet him in person. If not to debate, than to go to a Marvel movie or to challenge him to chess at the gorgeous park near my home. I like people, I don't let Juqs worldview dictate how I feel about him personally. Now, don't get the wrong idea, I'm far from perfect. I'm also occasionally personal in my arguments but i try my utmost not for it too. All I'm saying is that,in light of the recent surge of political posts, we all need to step back, breath and realise something. We're all friends here. I've met more smart people on this site than in real life. It I had my way, I would invite you all to our own private comic con lol.

Politics ( Especially American in modern history ) has always been a nasty, insult filled, dirt throwing fight.

This is pretty Americentric (since you don't know anything about other polits). American polit today are relatively very tame. Tell me when fights break out in the national gathering, or there's mammoth protesting everywhere.

Also, bigotry is not new.

Edited 6/3/2016 05:45:29

" Since you don't know anything about other politics "


^ sense this thread was supposed to be about a good sense of sportsmanship, I will let that immature jab slide although I must say, I'm quite disappointed

I for one would also love to meet Hitler, so I could blow his brains out.

Dialogue is great, it's how we acknowledge overcome our own biases and figure out a way to actually move the country forward. It's what happens when we recognize other people are just as valid as we are and that, for them to arrive at a certain conclusion, it likely means there's something compelling- and even if it lacks merit, it's worthwhile to at least understand why they hold it so we can really understand what they care about.

But sometimes we've just got to confront evil when we see it. I've really invested a lot of effort into attempting political dialogue before, but since 2010 it's started to feel like waking up in a world where half of the people are actively campaigning for chattel slavery, pushing ideas without merit. In high school, before I could even vote, I sincerely tried to learn more about all sides and create further political dialogue- investing hours contacting people and writing up documents that others weren't willing to. My efforts culminated in getting my Congressional Representative, a Tea Party member, to come speak at our school- and I went there with zero intent of confrontation but rather to listen to his ideas and understand why his ideology was so appealing to so many Americans and pick his mind to improve my own understanding and appreciation of America. And this man- a member of the most powerful legislative body on Earth, with some fairly impactful committee assignments, backed by many people in my local community and far outside it- not only makes some flat-out verifiably wrong statements (minor infraction), passes out pocket Constitutions while voting for restrictions on American liberty, etc., but he straight-up supports war crimes and the nuclear destruction of both Iran and North Korea until nothing but a "black crater" is left.

He called for the mass murder of 100 million people- about 17 Holocausts if you want to put it in context. As someone who deeply appreciates America and strongly believes that global American strength is not only better than any alternative but an ideal state of affairs for the world, I simply cannot acknowledge that man's views as legitimate or see him as anything but crazy, intellectually handicapped, and morally bankrupt. As Clinton put it this morning, "This isn't reality TV- it's reality."

Politics isn't just a game we play. It affects real people that many other real people care about. When we treat it as a sport and let evil and insanity happen in the name of sportsmanship, we're failing to do our duty as human beings and as members of a powerful democratic world power and instead condemning real people to very real suffering.

It's far from unheard of for large swathes of a population to believe in something that's just completely wrong- in fact, it's been the case for most of history and- looking at modern issues like climate change and (sadly) evolution- it's the case today. And it's worth recognizing that just because some behavior is now normal doesn't mean we shouldn't actively confront it and treat it as more than a mere sport.

Edited 6/3/2016 07:01:26

I agree ( I always hated the Tea Party anyway although I do like there Pro-Constitution stances ) but all I'm saying is civility and peace should always be the first option. I'm not afraid to draw a sword for what I believe, but I will always exhaust every other course of action before that. All I wanted to do in this thread is express the fact that we all need to stop being so dam personal in our arguments and also quite the passive aggressive swings ( As Juq just lovingly did ). I mean really, I think it's extremely immature to attack someone's intelligence on an issue or idea. If you successfully tear down someone's argument, you're already proving that without saying a word.

Edited 6/3/2016 07:11:32

But sometimes we've just got to confront evil when we see it.

That's true, but you used one of the most extreme examples possible. Obviously wiping out whole countries in a nuclear holocaust is wrong. But how do you handle more ambiguous subjects? Take a look at abortion for example. Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people seem to think of the other side as Satan incarnate, and the vitriol two people from opposite sides of the issue will throw at each other in any one debate is through the roof. There are civilized debates on it from time to time, but usually it's just an insult contest with people screaming at each other, throwing out debunked statements, and not offering any good solutions because they're more concerned about silencing the other person (Because they're "evil").

I'm pretty sure that Conservative was talking about hot button, grey area topics such as the above. Whenever something is morally ambiguous, it's important to have free and open debate about the subject. Attempting to repress debate on the matter because you think one side as "evil" will only lead to violence in the end.

It's far from unheard of for large swathes of a population to believe in something that's just completely wrong- in fact, it's been the case for most of history and- looking at modern issues like climate change and (sadly) evolution- it's the case today. And it's worth recognizing that just because some behavior is now normal doesn't mean we shouldn't actively confront it and treat it as more than a mere sport.

Nuclear bombing, global warming, and evolution. One of these things is not like the others.

Nuclear war and global warming are both serious issues which threaten the lives of many. But evolution is rather irrelevant in the overall scheme. I hate when people lump it together with climate change, because climate change is a far more important issue with real effects. When people start dying because Billy Bob in Tennessee doesn't believe we came from monkeys or whatever, let me know.

When we treat it as a sport and let evil and insanity happen in the name of sportsmanship, we're failing to do our duty as human beings and as members of a powerful democratic world power and instead condemning real people to very real suffering.

+1, but how democratic really is it?

the passive aggressive swings ( As Juq just lovingly did ).

It's not a swing; each politic thread you've made on Warlight is about America.

Take a look at abortion for example. Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people seem to think of the other side as Satan incarnate

I think it's more for-life folk actually. For-life folk, they see for-choice as wanting to actively legalise the killing of human babies. For-choice folk, they see for-life as wanting to curb freedoms. Which one would draw more outrage?

but you used one of the most extreme examples possible

It's extreme in the sense that it's crazy, not uncommon. Like I said, this is a popular Tea Party Rep who's been far from ostracized for the things he's pushing and certainly isn't an isolated minority group.

It's extreme in the sense that it's crazy, not uncommon. Like I said, this is a popular Tea Party Rep who's been far from ostracized for the things he's pushing and certainly isn't an isolated minority group.

So where do all these people who advocate nuclear war on North Korea/Iran live at? I practically live in Tea Party central and I've only ever heard maybe two or three people seriously take this position at most.

Juq, that was an unfair judgment that I'm sure a lot of people here would have also drawn the conclusion that it was an insult. I could also make the judgment that your clearly Anti American and Western Views cloud your judgement on many things, but I don't.


Just to clear the air, I have extensive knowledge of European and North American politics and history plus I have recently gone on a Asiatic history and political binge

Edited 6/3/2016 19:06:10

I could also make the judgment that your clearly Anti American and Western Views cloud your judgement on many things

I'm not anti-American nor anti-west, just anti militaristic governments, you can't say I'm clearly anti-west when I've not really criticised any government other than America.

Me being against how most governments operate is anti-government, and not at all limited to America or the west.

Without spending too much time, I'm pretty sure that all the polit you've ever talked about is America, or rarely, Britain. Just see if you can answer these few frains about elections from 2015 and 2016 without looking it up:

*Who is China's leader?
*Who is India's?
*Who currently holds the most seats in the Japanese National Gathering?
*What are the 4 biggest parties are competing in the upcoming Russian national gathering elections?
*When is the next presidential election in China?
*When is the next Indian general election?

Just to clear the air, I have extensive knowledge of European and North American politics and history plus I have recently gone on a Asiantic history and political binge

Thanks for clearing the air. Tell me then, if you've got extensive knowledge of Europe and North America, who represents the Communist Party of Russia?

*Tsai Ing-wen
*Modi (forgot the rest of his name)
*idk
*United Russia, communist party, the pan-slavic one and I don't know; realistically, only the first two are big enough
*2020
*2018? not sure how long the terms are there; assuming it's 4.

Lol your seriously gonna be that closed sited? I could just go on Google to find out XD. If your trying to prove a point, that's not an effective way

*Who is China's leader?
*Who is India's?
*Who currently holds the most seats in the Japanese National Gathering?
*What are the 4 biggest parties are competing in the upcoming Russian national gathering elections?
*When is the next presidential election in China?
*When is the next Indian general election?

Ooh, I bet I can do this! Let me see:

1. Yi jinping
2. Narendra Modi
3. Liberal Democratic party maybe?
4. I'm going to guess united russia and three different communist parties
5. Ummm... 2020?
6. Damn, I don't know this one. is it 2017?

Like I said, he should ask that over a live chat so I wouldn't have time to look it up or something. Since I can't prove that I didn't look up my answers, what's the point he's trying to make? That he's better? That I'm stupid? It doesn't make any dam sense.


Like I said, whatever his point is, he's definitely not being direct. If he thinks he's better just say so or deny it. Be honest and direct dam it. At least Ox told me I was a bad clan leader ( I usually agree as far as my pride will let me ) but guess what! We're stil friends. I value directness and honestly more than anything. So tell me what you think without playing a quizzical game

Edited 6/3/2016 22:11:31

*Who is China's leader?
*Who is India's?
*Who currently holds the most seats in the Japanese National Gathering?
*What are the 4 biggest parties are competing in the upcoming Russian national gathering elections?
*When is the next presidential election in China?
*When is the next Indian general election?

1. Xi Jinping
2. Narendra Modi
3. Abe's party (right-wing, pro-free trade)
4. United Russia, Communist Party, and 2 other parties that have no shot in that oligarchy
5. Trick question. CCP convenes and picks a new leader once every decade or so. That should take place about 2022?
6. Another trick question. India's is a parliamentary government and the parliament can schedule elections at will (like in Israel) although they face a deadline of I believe 5 years since the previous Lok Sabha election.

Like I said, he should ask that over a live chat so I wouldn't have time to look it up or something.

You'd only be lying to yourself, this is just a self-assessment for you (no clue why folk are actually answering it legitimately), although I trust you to have a little bit of trustworthiness, maybe I'm naif.

If he thinks he's better just say so or deny it.

If you really want me to say what I think, yes, I think I'm better than you, but I can't claim to know for sure, and wouldn't say so unless prodded, like here. But if you really wanted to know what I think, then I've already told you: too Americentric.

---

The answer key:

1. China's Communist Party's general leader is Hsi Chinping (or Xí Jìnpíng, in pinyin).
2. India's prime minister is Narenda Modi.
3. Abe Shinzō's party, the Liberal Democratic Party (good guess, Imperator :).
4. United Russia, Communism, A Just Russia, and the Liberal Democracy (each with over 10% seats in the national gathering for now)
5. The 13th National Folk's Gathering is scheduled to begin in 2018, at the ending of the 12th.
6. The next general election is scheduled to be in 2019, at the ending of the 16th Folkhouse.

See, now how hard was that?, not at all. All you had to do was confirm arrogance in the situation, you never have a problem doing that any other time.


Personally, I consider you too bias in your arguments against Western ideals. Now don't get me wrong, I like to keep an open mind. Heck, part of the reason I'm not particularly liked by both Conservatives and Liberals on this site is because I am open minded enough to attack there ideas equally. But many people, in there search for options outside of the Western realm, gain an unnecessary bias against the West after finding another worldview more to their liking. I have studied a couple of Chinese Philosophers but I tend to like John Locke and others more interesting. It's not that I'm biased. I took an open view of things and i decided I liked my previous studies better. I simply think your in the phase of wandering where you just pretty much put down anyone who disagrees with you, which is fine because everyone goes through it ( I kinda went through something similar to it right after my retirement ) but you'll grow out of it.


I think the difference between me and you is I do my best to respect everyone's view, but of course i fail occasionally. Your not inherently arrogant, just temporarily.

All you had to do was confirm arrogance in the situation, you never have a problem doing that any other time.

I don't think it was arrogant to say that I'm better than you, but don't know for sure, at your behest for me to answer your frain.

your arguments against Western ideals

I don't know what "west ideas" are, so I don't believe I've ever argued against them.

I'm not particularly liked by both Conservatives and Liberals on this site is because I am open minded enough to attack there ideas equally.

Most folk here are not that closed-minded.

I have studied a couple of Chinese Philosophers but I tend to like John Locke and others more interesting. It's not that I'm biased.

It's not just China, but India, Japan, and Korea, and do you think it was only coincidence that you were the only one who brought up American philosophers in that thread?

you just pretty much put down anyone who disagrees with you

kek

Your not inherently arrogant, just temporarily.

How's that mean?

When I say Western ideals, I think it's pretty obvious I'm speaking of Philosophy that originated in the West.


Last time I checked, John Locke wasn't American. Actually, the only American Philosopher I enjoy reading is Jefferson. I really enjoyed Reading Marx too. Either way, you should have payed more attention and you would have known that about me.


What I mean is, your in a phase that causes arrogance that will pass, that's all.