Mid Term Elections- Lessons Learned

[pgg]

Yes. A literal interpretation of the constitution is always best as conservatives say. It’s not living nor breathing and society shouldn’t progress. Maybe Kavanaugh and Barrett can lead an opinion taking us back to the 3/5ths compromise.

You can ignore my snark. I just think it’s absurd to consider what’s occurred with 2A, abortion, and what’ll likely happen with AA, and say to yourself ‘ah yes this is exactly as it should be…clearly a literal interpretation’ while also having your head screwed on straight. SCOTUS is just a political arm for both sides at this point. Clear as day.

It's a living and breathing document in the sense that there's an amendment process. If we don't like what it says, that's the mechanism to make it change. The mechanism to change it isn't judges deciding that the nation's moral stance today means we can ignore the bits we rightfully feel awkward about.

Yes, I know amendment is hard to the point of near-impossibility in this era.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

Ah we’ve reached the point of the argument where the constitution has been brought forth, and where Scalia thought he was right and liberals wrong. If Scalia thought it then God Almighty must’ve wrote it down, for his word was gospel.

Yes, let’s gather thoughts on what the white male slave owners thought about the education, or lack thereof, of URMs. That’ll really get us where we need to be with the debate.

Ending slavery was addressed, in the eyes of the law, by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Historical analysis of white male slaveowners' thoughts on the matter isn't relevant to the question any more.

The Founders didn't want women to vote either, but that too was addressed by amending the Constitution.

Scalia was right.

 

[chessknt]

It's a living and breathing document in the sense that there's an amendment process. If we don't like what it says, that's the mechanism to make it change. The mechanism to change it isn't judges deciding that the nation's moral stance today means we can ignore the bits we rightfully feel awkward about.

Yes, I know amendment is hard to the point of near-impossibility in this era.

Since we can't amend it then it truly is what the SCOTUS says. We went from a split court with a swing vote to a 6-3 split that guarantees the right will always win. You can essentially predict with almost absolute certainty the outcome of every case before the court now because it is so politically biased which is a major problem (unless you align with the right in which case it is appropriate and totally fine).

 

[deleted875186]

It's a living and breathing document in the sense that there's an amendment process. If we don't like what it says, that's the mechanism to make it change. The mechanism to change it isn't judges deciding that the nation's moral stance today means we can ignore the bits we rightfully feel awkward about.

Yes, I know amendment is hard to the point of near-impossibility in this era.

Problem is not what the constitution says, but rather that most issues are complex and require interpretation. Even the strictest conservatives, trying to follow the constitutions original wording to a tee is an interpretation of what we think was meant when it was written.

 

[nimbus]

SCOTUS is just a political institution now.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

SCOTUS is just a political institution now.

My guess to the future Response:

“So be it (as long as my side is in power).”

 

[Southpaw]

Ending slavery was addressed, in the eyes of the law, by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Historical analysis of white male slaveowners' thoughts on the matter isn't relevant to the question any more.

The Founders didn't want women to vote either, but that too was addressed by amending the Constitution.

Scalia was right.

Everyone has their pet projects. You want any court anywhere to uphold and expand gun rights. I get it - you’re a gun guy. And you perceive ‘the right to bear arms’ as an excuse to do just about anything you want with regard to weapons, as a modern day extension of a constitutional right.

The liberal judges, post Dobbs v JWHO, were rightly concerned that SCOTUS would become a joke. Roe v Wade stood for nearly 50 years of case law including reaffirmation by SCOTUS in 1992. As a physician I’m certainly no constitutional scholar and never hope to be, but its impossible to ignore that conservative judges chose to ignore stare decisis and protection under the 14th when it suited their personal beliefs, and in turn liberal judges will certainly do the same. That’s just our fractious sociopolitical environment today. And it’s also impossible to ignore that as soon as Thomas came up for air he stated that it’s time to go after birth control and gay rights. SCOTUS is a political arm, nothing more nothing less. Recent rulings have made what wasn’t once so obvious, very plainly clear.

Amendments on social issues that divide the country are not possible today. I can at least admit, setting aside my personal feelings, that many polls show Americans don’t like AA. I get it. All that said, it isn’t unreasonable for me to expect SCOTUS to be more apolitical.

I recall when McConnell stonewalled Garland he said you don’t fill vacancies in the middle of an election. Of course, that was a gentleman’s rule. No resolution said as such. And he became an obvious ridiculous hypocrite after RBG passed and Barrett got confirmed on a divided party vote. He’s just playing the game I guess. Don’t hate the playa, right?

Anyway, as a social liberal I can’t help but be disgusted at the turns this country has taken and will take socially, with a Republican majority in SCOTUS.

But you said it well and said it right - win elections. That’s all the matters. So while my voting history is scattered with mostly Dems but also some libertarians and even some Republicans in the past, I can’t envision myself ever voting for another Republican in my lifetime.

 

[vector2]

It's a living and breathing document in the sense that there's an amendment process. If we don't like what it says, that's the mechanism to make it change. The mechanism to change it isn't judges deciding that the nation's moral stance today means we can ignore the bits we rightfully feel awkward about.

Yes, I know amendment is hard to the point of near-impossibility in this era.

By virtue of the Constitution being written when it was + having an amendment process that's makes an amendment passing nowadays about as likely as a meteor strike, we're left with innumerable legal/societal scenarios where the text simply doesn't address the issue specifically enough to be really, really clear about how that legal/societal issue should be adjudicated.

If a guy out on the street is assembling and protesting the government and an agent of the government stops him, that is very clearly "abridging the freedom of speech."

But Larry Flynt publishing a magazine that would make a gynecologist blush is not a scenario explicitly addressed in the Constitution. Multibillion dollar corporations actually being persons who can engage in unlimited electioneering right up until election day is not a scenario which is explicitly addressed in the Constitution. Those two issues were not decided based on the literal text in the First Amendment. They were decided by political justices who were free to interpret the FA however they wished and then come down with a decision.

And if one doesn't believe the court is totally political in this day and age, then all that shows is a very high degree of naivete. Just look at the following clip. The conservative justices aren't noble stewards of the law who knew Citizens was a bad decision but made it anyways because of respect for the text. Alito is a hack who literally believed the Heritage Foundation propaganda that everything would be just fine once the money became unlimited.

The Real Supreme Court News Isn’t the Alleged Alito Leak

Revelations about an influence campaign by anti-abortion activists and donors highlight the need for ethics safeguards.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[vector2]

Let's also not forget, Saint Scalia would've put the most industry-sponsored interventional cardiologist to shame judging by the amount of honoraria he accepted over his career, including from people who had issues before his court.

Scalia took the most expense-paid trips on the Supreme Court

Many justices are frequent expenses-paid travelers, a practice some court scholars say is a minor matter, given that many of the trips involve public talks that help demystify the court. Others say the trips could potentially create the appearance of...

www.seattletimes.com

 

[nimbus]

Let's also not forget, Saint Scalia would've put the most industry-sponsored interventional cardiologist to shame judging by the amount of honoraria he accepted over his career, including from people who had issues before his court.

View attachment 362598

Scalia took the most expense-paid trips on the Supreme Court

Many justices are frequent expenses-paid travelers, a practice some court scholars say is a minor matter, given that many of the trips involve public talks that help demystify the court. Others say the trips could potentially create the appearance of...

www.seattletimes.com

Don’t forget the private dinners that Alito likes to have with rich Bible thumpers. SCOTUS is supposed to strictly interpret the law and not be influenced by lobbyists.

The Real Supreme Court News Isn’t the Alleged Alito Leak

Revelations about an influence campaign by anti-abortion activists and donors highlight the need for ethics safeguards.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[doctalaughs]

You can essentially predict with almost absolute certainty the outcome of every case before the court now because it is so politically biased which is a major problem (unless you align with the right in which case it is appropriate and totally fine).

Not certain that’s 100% true. While obviously the court now is much more conservative, the liberal justices still win sometimes, and “liberal” leaning policies can occasionally be decided in their favor (list of “liberal” wins since the conservative supermajority took hold below in blue lines).

“
That’s not to say that the liberal justices did not achieve any victories in closely divided cases. Of the 10 cases decided by a 5-4 vote, seven reached what we define as liberal outcomes, where two of the conservative justices joined the three liberal justices in the majority. But 5-4 cases are no longer accurate reflections of the court’s ideological direction.


“

As unanimity declines, conservative majority’s power runs deeper than the blockbuster cases - SCOTUSblog

One year ago, the Supreme Court had just ended a term of transition. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority. Yet the court issued more unanimous decisions than in the three preceding terms, and some major rulings showed compromise or

www.scotusblog.com

 

[vector2]

Not certain that’s 100% true. While obviously the court now is much more conservative, the liberal justices still win sometimes, and “liberal” leaning policies can occasionally be decided in their favor (list of “liberal” wins since the conservative supermajority took hold below in blue lines).

“
That’s not to say that the liberal justices did not achieve any victories in closely divided cases. Of the 10 cases decided by a 5-4 vote, seven reached what we define as liberal outcomes, where two of the conservative justices joined the three liberal justices in the majority. But 5-4 cases are no longer accurate reflections of the court’s ideological direction.


“

As unanimity declines, conservative majority’s power runs deeper than the blockbuster cases - SCOTUSblog

One year ago, the Supreme Court had just ended a term of transition. Justice Amy Coney Barrett had replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority. Yet the court issued more unanimous decisions than in the three preceding terms, and some major rulings showed compromise or

www.scotusblog.com

Interesting article. These thesis of it being that the current SCOTUS is the most partisan one in modern history. And I think you pointing out there's a couple token decisions here and there that went the liberal way doesn't change that

The 2021-22 term — one of the most momentous in the court’s 233-year history — was defined by conservative milestones on abortion, guns, religion, and climate change regulation. But a statistical analysis of the full merits docket shows that the court’s rightward shift runs even deeper than those blockbuster cases. Unanimous decisions sharply declined as 6-3 outcomes surged. The conservative justices showed high levels of agreement. And the three liberal justices dissented at the highest rates of their time on the court.

The findings in this article are based on SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack, an annual collection of Supreme Court data.

This term, only 29% of the court’s decisions on the merits were unanimous. This is a sharp drop from the 43% average over the past decade. And for the first time in recent memory, 9-0 was not the most common vote alignment. Instead, 6-3 was the most common alignment, with 30% of cases being decided along those lines.

Most of those 6-3 decisions — 14 out of 19 — were polarized along ideological lines, with the six conservative justices in the majority and the three liberal justices in dissent. Most notably, the six conservatives voted as a bloc to broaden Second Amendment rights, expand the role of religion in public life, and limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon emissions. (The six conservatives also were in the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, though one of them — Chief Justice John Roberts — wrote that he preferred a narrower result and would not have overturned Roe v. Wade.) And in other lower-profile but highly consequential decisions, the conservatives voted together to strike down a campaign-finance law, restrict relief for prisoners challenging their convictions, and limit the ability of citizens to sue police officers and federal agents for alleged constitutional violations.

​

 

[doctalaughs]

Interesting article. These thesis of it being that the current SCOTUS is the most partisan one in modern history. And I think you pointing out there's a couple token decisions here and there that went the liberal way doesn't change that

​

The 2021-22 term — one of the most momentous in the court’s 233-year history — was defined by conservative milestones on abortion, guns, religion, and climate change regulation. But a statistical analysis of the full merits docket shows that the court’s rightward shift runs even deeper than those blockbuster cases. Unanimous decisions sharply declined as 6-3 outcomes surged. The conservative justices showed high levels of agreement. And the three liberal justices dissented at the highest rates of their time on the court.​

​

The findings in this article are based on SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack, an annual collection of Supreme Court data.​

​

This term, only 29% of the court’s decisions on the merits were unanimous. This is a sharp drop from the 43% average over the past decade. And for the first time in recent memory, 9-0 was not the most common vote alignment. Instead, 6-3 was the most common alignment, with 30% of cases being decided along those lines.​

​

View attachment 362604​

​

Most of those 6-3 decisions — 14 out of 19 — were polarized along ideological lines, with the six conservative justices in the majority and the three liberal justices in dissent. Most notably, the six conservatives voted as a bloc to broaden Second Amendment rights, expand the role of religion in public life, and limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon emissions. (The six conservatives also were in the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, though one of them — Chief Justice John Roberts — wrote that he preferred a narrower result and would not have overturned Roe v. Wade.) And in other lower-profile but highly consequential decisions, the conservatives voted together to strike down a campaign-finance law, restrict relief for prisoners challenging their convictions, and limit the ability of citizens to sue police officers and federal agents for alleged constitutional violations.​

​

View attachment 362605​

​

I don’t disagree with the overall conclusion of the article but I would argue your “a couple” should be changed to 7 —and partisan would probably be better characterized as “highly conservative” because in the few instances Trump has actually brought his personal luggage to scotus, it’s been shot down.

 

[vector2]

I don’t disagree with the overall conclusion of casthe article but I would argue your “a couple” should be changed to 7 —and partisan would probably be better characterized as “highly conservative” because in the few instances Trump has actually brought his personal luggage to scotus, it’s been shot down.

Having an overwhelmingly conservative slant to such a high number of decisions is partisan. A specific politician doesn't have to be supported to use that word- just a particular party's general ideology (i.e. the Republicans)

And sure, if it makes you feel better we can say 7 instead of a couple. Out of 66 cases which were decided in the term

 

[Goro]

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

med.umn.edu

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion | Duke Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

The Department of Orthopaedic Surgery leadership recognized, in the fall of 2019, important desired behaviors and unacceptable conduct and behaviors as touchstones for our work together. Recognition of these is vitally important to the work we do as a team to continue to lead, grow, and improve...

ortho.duke.edu

This DEI initiative has gone nationwide with only a few holdouts in the deep South. These days the unspoken rule of thumb is that 1/2 of each entering class, or more, will consist of minorities and/or women regardless of Step Scores/Grades.

Time to trot this gem out:

 

[chessknt]

I don’t disagree with the overall conclusion of the article but I would argue your “a couple” should be changed to 7 —and partisan would probably be better characterized as “highly conservative” because in the few instances Trump has actually brought his personal luggage to scotus, it’s been shot down.

From a conservative perspective the current set up of the SCOTUS and an unfixable constitution is perfect. It is creating an uncontrollable wobble effect on our entire society. It started with abortion but it is going to be a much wider net and it will be our downfall. There was a really good compromise proposed about cycling justices out every 2 years with a backup bench in case of an unexpected death to avoid this lopsided mess we have now and make the SCOTUS less influenced by the longevity of it's members and their ability to avoid unexpected deaths but of course the right would never consider it.

 

[doctalaughs]

Having an overwhelmingly conservative slant to such a high number of decisions is partisan. A specific politician doesn't have to be supported to use that word- just a particular party's general ideology (i.e. the Republicans)

And sure, if it makes you feel better we can say 7 instead of a couple. Out of 66 cases which were decided in the term

Lol- do you have to vehemently argue with everything - even when people point out facts (seven not two) and agree 95% but not 100% with you?

I personally disagree with the major changes in abortion rights and the expansion of gun rights this court has made. If they shoot down AA, I will agree on that - personally.

That being said, the democrats need to suck it up and figure out how to win more presidential elections and appoint judges when the older conservative ones die…. barring that they have no power to change things.

 

[vector2]

Lol- do you have to vehemently argue with everything - even when people point out facts (seven not two) and agree 95% but not 100% with you?

Did you have to be a pedant about me using the words "a couple" vs 7 [out of 66] when the numerical difference had no effect upon the semantic point being made?

I personally disagree with the major changes in abortion rights and the expansion of gun rights this court has made. If they shoot down AA, I will agree on that - personally.

That being said, the democrats need to suck it up and figure out how to win more presidential elections and appoint judges when the older conservative ones die…. barring that they have no power to change things.

Yes, they do need to win more presidential elections. But I get tired of the observation that the dems have to do so much better when their platform and candidates are already popular enough to get a pretty repeatable +2-5% margin in the popular vote, yet losing the EC at the lower end of that margin is now eminently possible.

 

[chessknt]

Lol- do you have to vehemently argue with everything - even when people point out facts (seven not two) and agree 95% but not 100% with you?

I personally disagree with the major changes in abortion rights and the expansion of gun rights this court has made. If they shoot down AA, I will agree on that - personally.

That being said, the democrats need to suck it up and figure out how to win more presidential elections and appoint judges when the older conservative ones die…. barring that they have no power to change things.

That's the same problem then and engenders more anger. We need a better solution that is fair. Trump got to appoint more justices than Obama in half the time, that is beyond stupid.

 

[doctalaughs]

Did you have to be a pedant about me using the words "a couple" vs 7 [out of 66] when the numerical difference had no effect upon the semantic point being made?



Yes, they do need to win more presidential elections. But I get tired of the observation that the dems have to do so much better when their platform and candidates are already popular enough to get a pretty repeatable +2-5% margin in the popular vote, yet losing the EC at the lower end of that margin is now eminently possible.

If you really care to argue in good faith- then numbers do matter. For example you keep saying 7 (or “a couple”) out of 66 (sixty six!!) but that is very misleading as well- because that includes all the 9-0 unanimous decisions or the 8-1 decisions that the liberal justices or most of them agreed on. Really this graph below is the most instructive where the conservatives won in about 19 of the 26 close cases with all/most of the liberals dissenting.

So is the court way more conservative? Yes. Is every matter brought to them 100% going to be pre-decided for 1 party as a prior poster suggested? Not really, if you care about data.

 

[vector2]

If you really care to argue in good faith- then numbers do matter. For example you keep saying 7 (or “a couple”) out of 66 (sixty six!!) but that is very misleading as well- because that includes all the 9-0 unanimous decisions or the 8-1 decisions that the liberal justices or most of them agreed on. Really this graph below is the most instructive where the conservatives won in about 19 of the 26 close cases with all/most of the liberals dissenting.

So is the court way more conservative? Yes. Is every matter brought to them 100% going to be pre-decided for 1 party as a prior poster suggested? Not really, if you care about data.



View attachment 362623

You wanna know what's really misleading and in bad faith? You quoting that SCOTUSblog article (in response to a poster who said the court was way too overly conservative), not mentioning that the MAIN THESIS of that article was that SCOTUS has swung way way way too far to the right, omitting the larger part of that article which lays out the staggering, unprecedented number of 6-3 decisions, and then cherry picking the liberal decisions in only the 5-4 cases (which in any other non-trump hellscape court probably would be 7-2 or 8-1 liberal decisions).....all in the effort to try to make the point that someone is being non-factual.

Seriously, are you really, really under the impression that me or @chessknt were saying that all - like literally 100% - of SCOTUS decisions were going to swing conservative? Cause if so, you need to work on your ability to understand hyperbole, parsing, and rhetoric. Ultimately, since you seems hellbent on a pedantic "gotcha," let me point out that chessknt said "with ALMOST absolute certainty" and my semantic point using "a couple" still remains correct, especially in light of the fact that the landmark decisions, i.e. the ones we all care deeply about, all went conservative.

 

[deleted1147063]

For those who asked a few days ago:

 

[doctalaughs]

You wanna know what's really misleading and in bad faith? You quoting that SCOTUSblog article (in response to a poster who said the court was way too overly conservative), not mentioning that the MAIN THESIS of that article was that SCOTUS has swung way way way too far to the right, omitting the larger part of that article which lays out the staggering, unprecedented number of 6-3 decisions, and then cherry picking the liberal decisions in only the 5-4 cases (which in any other non-trump hellscape court probably would be 7-2 or 8-1 liberal decisions).....all in the effort to try to make the point that someone is being non-factual.

Seriously, are you really, really under the impression that me or @chessknt were saying that all - like literally 100% - of SCOTUS decisions were going to swing conservative? Cause if so, you need to work on your ability to understand hyperbole, parsing, and rhetoric. Ultimately, since you seems hellbent on a pedantic "gotcha," let me point out that chessknt said "with ALMOST absolute certainty" and my semantic point using "a couple" still remains correct, especially in light of the fact that the landmark decisions, i.e. the ones we all care deeply about, all went conservative.

You seem hellbent on arguing. If “almost absolute certainty” means 19/26 cases to you then fine by me.

The sad thing is I never disagreed or misunderstood the main premise of the article and that it largely agreed with you and cheesknt about the large shift in the decisions. Just was pointing out the actual data for everyone to see that all justices don’t 100% vote on partisan lines, at least not to the degree of the senate. But I guess you only want to hear 100% concordance.

 

[vector2]

You seem hellbent on arguing. If “almost absolute certainty” means 19/26 cases to you then fine by me.

What I'm hellbent on is conveying the point that

1. Neither I nor @chessknt (he can ultimately speak for himself, though) were ever under the impression that literally 100% of all decisions handed down this term, controversial or otherwise, were partisan.

2. For anyone who is even remotely capable of reading between the lines, I'd argue they would acknowledge #1 + be of a reasonable like mind to understand that when we're talking about SCOTUS decisions, we're generally talking about the most important (and/or most newsworthy) decisions, i.e. the landmark ones.

To give you an analogy, if I say it's "almost an absolute certainty" that a Republican Senate is going to pass all conservative bills, do you think it's reasonable to @ me with a reply about how I'm wrong because they passed a bipartisan bill naming a post office? Because that's kinda what you're doing with your perseveration about being technically right about those 7 cases (the only notable one of those being the COVID vaccine/healthcare worker case which is irrelevant to American life nowadays anyway).

OTOH, there was an "almost absolute certainty" that the court this term, when it came to actually substantive, polarizing matters, was going to come down with right wing decisions on abortion, immigration, guns, carbon emissions, religion in public life, relief for prisoners challenging their convictions, and the limit the ability of citizens to sue police officers and federal agents for alleged constitutional violations. And judging by this track record, there's every reason to believe that future controversial partisan issues have a 95-100% chance of being decided conservative, not 19 chances in 26 or whatever else you want to suggest.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Man I have read through pretty much the whole thread as it has developed and (while I appreciate the effort Blade gave in starting this thread) y'all mofo's ain't learned sheet. This thread was supposed to be about lessons conservatives learned in reflecting on the midterm elections and it's just counterpoint after counterpoint. Y'all are just stuffing your fingers in your ears because you refuse to actually try to improve your conservative views. Believe me that I get that the liberal peeps are just as stubborn and pigheaded about improving their side too, but again I will simply point out that this thread is about lessons for the conservative members.

 

[Gern Blansten]

The sky is blue and water is wet.










**Testing a theory

 

[LaryngoSpazz]

The sky is blue and water is wet.










**Testing a theory

Why does the sky have to be so transphobic. And what if water doesn’t identify with being wet?

 

[deleted1147063]

Why does the sky have to be so transphobic. And what if water doesn’t identify with being wet?

Then the water needs a good psychiatrist, to better understand itself.

Just because I don't identify with being a white male, the world won't see me differently. Heck, Mother Nature won't see me differently, and I'll still get prostate cancer and melanoma and won't get pregnant. I'm still a white male, except in my delusional brain. Same way fat is beautiful only in the eyes of some fat people; most of the world disagrees, hence all the diets. But God forbid you tell a fat person s/he's fat, in America.

The right is not transphobic, it's delusion-phobic, it's (self) victimization-phobic. And most of the world agrees with them.

The left is truth-phobic, because their favorite place in the world is Utopia.

One can be tolerant, even loving, with delusional people without sharing their delusions. Especially if they are one's loved ones.

 

[deleted1116990]

Sounds like this conversation is getting too heated when the name calling starts - so I’ll leave it at this and you can have the last word if you like.

Lol- do you have to vehemently argue with everything - even when people point out facts (seven not two) and agree 95% but not 100% with you?

Just don't engage dude. Have you not figured out this person's MO yet? Ad hominem anyone who disagrees with any bit of the full woke agenda to death, strawman and pigeon hole whatever their opinions are as far right nonsense, and argue incessantly (will almost certainly respond with the accuse-your-opponent-of-what-you-are-really-doing-yourself tactic here). Will always have the last word, and if called out on that, will accuse you of doing the same thing for calling them out.

Only way to win is to not play the game with these people whose lives revolve around viewing everything through a hyperpartisan binary lens. This is basically all of Twitter, and it's a total waste of time (I can almost guarantee you this person is active on Twitter).

 

[vector2]

Just don't engage dude. Have you not figured out this person's MO yet? Ad hominem anyone who disagrees with any bit of the full woke agenda to death, strawman and pigeon hole whatever their opinions are as far right nonsense, and argue incessantly (will almost certainly respond with the accuse-your-opponent-of-what-you-are-really-doing-yourself tactic here). Will always have the last word, and if called out on that, will accuse you of doing the same thing for calling them out.

Only way to win is to not play the game with these people whose lives revolve around viewing everything through a hyperpartisan binary lens. This is basically all of Twitter, and it's a total waste of time (I can almost guarantee you this person is active on Twitter).

Good to see the projection remains strong with this one.

 

[Hoya11]

Then the water needs a good psychiatrist, to better understand itself.

Just because I don't identify with being a white male, the world won't see me differently. Heck, Mother Nature won't see me differently, and I'll still get prostate cancer and melanoma and won't get pregnant. I'm still a white male, except in my delusional brain. Same way fat is beautiful only in the eyes of some fat people; most of the world disagrees, hence all the diets. But God forbid you tell a fat person s/he's fat, in America.

The right is not transphobic, it's delusion-phobic, it's (self) victimization-phobic. And most of the world agrees with them.

The left is truth-phobic, because their favorite place in the world is Utopia.

One can be tolerant, even loving, with delusional people without sharing their delusions. Especially if they are one's loved ones.

But why is this delusion so offensive to you ?

 

[deleted1147063]

But why is this delusion so offensive to you ?

It's not, as long as I am not obligated to entertain it, as long as society doesn't turn on its head just to accommodate a very vocal minority.

Also known as the inmates are running the asylum.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Good to see the projection remains strong with this one.

Exactly as he predicted...

 

[vector2]

Exactly as he predicted...

A regular Nostradamus he must be.

But I gotta give it to him, I really do. He's got a great schtick going. Engage in rampant "both sides"ism using strawman after strawman against only the side he clearly doesn't support, but then say he's a "moderate" and everyone else is extreme. Follow that up with a healthy dose of gaslighting about how the person he's arguing with is actually the one using dishonest tactics, and then if that person protests, just gaslight everyone else and say his interlocutor is one the one really doing the gaslighting. Just brilliant stuff, truly.

 

[Hoya11]

It's not, as long as I am not obligated to entertain it, as long as society doesn't turn on its head just to accommodate a very vocal minority.

Also known as the inmates are running the asylum.

Can you give any examples of society “turning on its head” over this issue ?

Is this a reasonable fear ? Or is this “fear” that something bad will happen your own projection of your own personal disgust for their actions..

 

[vector2]

Man I have read through pretty much the whole thread as it has developed and (while I appreciate the effort Blade gave in starting this thread) y'all mofo's ain't learned sheet. This thread was supposed to be about lessons conservatives learned in reflecting on the midterm elections and it's just counterpoint after counterpoint. Y'all are just stuffing your fingers in your ears because you refuse to actually try to improve your conservative views. Believe me that I get that the liberal peeps are just as stubborn and pigheaded about improving their side too, but again I will simply point out that this thread is about lessons for the conservative members.

There's no doubt there's a couple liberals out there who are pigheaded (hehe), but look at the reality vs the right's perception of the reality. After Dems put up the worst candidate of all time who lost to the second worst candidate of all time in 2016, what did they do in 2020? Did the far left prevail and put Bernie or Elizabeth Warren at the head of the ticket? Nope, after three primaries by far the most electable moderate candidate got the nomination.

And after Biden was elected and the right claimed that Biden (of all people!) was the second coming of AOC, have any of these woke Boogeyman actually materialized in meaningful legislation? No. His entire presidency has been about fighting COVID, economic stimulus, and now fighting inflation. Regardless, a crazy conservative SCOTUS would've scuttled any liberal legislation before it even got off the ground.

But now surely the woke Boogeyman showed up during the midterms, right? Nope, in 14 out of 22 primaries where a progressive dem faced a moderate, the moderate won .

However, the right can't acknowledge any of this when it comes down to leadership and legislative brass tacks, so all they do is pedal pure non-fact based fearmongering and ramble on and on about how the dems are all far left woke socialist Marxist communist leninists blah blah blah. The dems figured out they should run moderates, and the voters figured out that the right is absolutely full of **** wrt how they paint the otherside. And this was empirically demonstrable by how insanely poor the GOP did in the midterms.

 

[Gern Blansten]

In my experience on other forums, the persons making accusations of others and using terms such as “gaslighting,” “straw man,” and employing the phrase “Full. Stop.” with the redundant periods are typically doing exactly what they accuse others of doing and claim expert status on all topics. All other points of view are shut down. I see those tactics in your posts more than anyone else on this entire forum. It seems as if you cannot consider that anyone with any sense could logically disagree with you. Therefore, you believe that your opinion is the only logical correct opinion.
It gets really tiresome. Especially since you post here at a pace no one else could possibly keep up with. Therefore, you’re able to effectively try and discredit every other point of view. I suspect that you have done little to change anyone’s opinion on the huge variety of topics that you are an expert on.

*I’ve braced myself for the onslaught of attacks.

 

[doctalaughs]

Can you give any examples of society “turning on its head” over this issue ?

Is this a reasonable fear ? Or is this “fear” that something bad will happen your own projection of your own personal disgust for their actions..

So I recently went back to my medical school and got to tour the standardized medical patient training for year 1/2 students. They are apparently teaching all the students the proper introduction when coming into a room is to always ask patients “Hi *name* what are your preferred pronouns? I am Dr. y and my pronouns are XYZ.”

While that sounds very respectful for the small # of gender fluid people - you are going to literally offend 50% of the population if that is your standard greeting. Imagine trying to do that in the VA or anywhere in real practice.

 

[Gern Blansten]

So I recently went back to my medical school and got to tour the standardized medical patient training for year 1/2 students. They are apparently teaching all the students the proper introduction when coming into a room is to always ask patients “Hi *name* what are your preferred pronouns? I am Dr. y and my pronouns are XYZ.”

While that sounds very respectful for the small # of gender fluid people - you are going to literally offend 50% of the population if that is your standard greeting. Imagine trying to do that in the VA or anywhere in real practice.

Yeah, anyone who did that at my hospital would get so many complaints from the patients that they would be told to stop immediately.

 

[doctalaughs]

Man I have read through pretty much the whole thread as it has developed and (while I appreciate the effort Blade gave in starting this thread) y'all mofo's ain't learned sheet. This thread was supposed to be about lessons conservatives learned in reflecting on the midterm elections and it's just counterpoint after counterpoint. Y'all are just stuffing your fingers in your ears because you refuse to actually try to improve your conservative views. Believe me that I get that the liberal peeps are just as stubborn and pigheaded about improving their side too, but again I will simply point out that this thread is about lessons for the conservative members.

The republicans * hopefully* learned that election denialism is a losing position. It would be good if they also learned that total abortion bans are also a loser politically -and be smart to promote a compromise federal legislation, even if they alienate some of their more extreme base.

I think the rest of their social positions (ie fighting woke practices in school and the workplace) are actually quite popular, although not on the top of voters minds. The economy they clearly have the advantage.

I will also point out in regards to scotus discussion - that election denialism WAS becoming (still is?) part of the Republican mainstream agenda and was clearly shot down (scotus refused to even hear the appeals on these few matters) there plus at the ballot box.

I know to me that sounds a bit counter to the notion scotus is 100% partisan and doesn’t consider the merits of the laws at all.

 

[vector2]

In my experience on other forums, the persons making accusations of others and using terms such as “gaslighting,” “straw man,” and employing the phrase “Full. Stop.” with the redundant periods are typically doing exactly what they accuse others of doing and claim expert status on all topics. All other points of view are shut down. I see those tactics in your posts more than anyone else on this entire forum. It seems as if you cannot consider that anyone with any sense could logically disagree with you. Therefore, you believe that your opinion is the only logical correct opinion.
It gets really tiresome. Especially since you post here at a pace no one else could possibly keep up with. Therefore, you’re able to effectively try and discredit every other point of view. I suspect that you have done little to change anyone’s opinion on the huge variety of topics that you are an expert on.

*I’ve braced myself for the onslaught of attacks.

If I'm being honest, I think your political leanings or other preexisting beliefs would've led you to prejudge any verdict you were ever going to have when reading an argument between me and someone else, regardless of the substance. It's why you nod your head in agreement when Moon accuses me of hurling strawmen and then cry foul when I say he's projecting. And at the end of the day, I don't really fault you for that. We're all subject to some degree of confirmation bias and tribalism, after all.

Regardless, I've been around here long enough and posted enough both clinically and non-clinically that I don't really care if you're swayed by me or not. I find arguing on this forum simply to be good personal exercise to see if the things I believe, which have some empirical basis, are actually backed up by the data and the facts. Thus, when I make an argument I always try to support it with some evidence. If I'm just offering my opinion, I say as such. Agree or disagree, that much is undeniable. And if I happen to convince someone (or even cause them to think a little bit about their own position which ultimately didn't change), great. If not, c'est la vie.

 

[deleted1116990]

In my experience on other forums, the persons making accusations of others and using terms such as “gaslighting,” “straw man,” and employing the phrase “Full. Stop.” with the redundant periods are typically doing exactly what they accuse others of doing and claim expert status on all topics. All other points of view are shut down. I see those tactics in your posts more than anyone else on this entire forum. It seems as if you cannot consider that anyone with any sense could logically disagree with you. Therefore, you believe that your opinion is the only logical correct opinion.
It gets really tiresome. Especially since you post here at a pace no one else could possibly keep up with. Therefore, you’re able to effectively try and discredit every other point of view. I suspect that you have done little to change anyone’s opinion on the huge variety of topics that you are an expert on.

*I’ve braced myself for the onslaught of attacks.

The tell is that the concept of someone being moderate on some issues is so greatly offensive to this person's ideology to result in such effort to discredit them and being unable to see that the way they do this is to do exactly what they accuse others of doing (which I predicted hilariously perfectly). When an opposing viewpoint is always Hitler's viewpoint, it's easy to not have to question yourself or challenge your priors. So just make everything you don't like Hitler.

Think elective abortion should be legally limited to 15 weeks? That's not moderate, that's extreme. Same camp as banning birth control because preventing implantation is murder. It certainly couldn't be that defending the legalization of full term elective abortion is the extreme position. Think that human sexuality should not be discussed in any fashion with elementary school children because they are, well, children? That's not moderate, that's extreme. Same camp as criminalizing homosexuality. It certainly couldn't be that supporting men dressing in sexuality provocative women's clothing and discussing sexual relationships with children is the extreme position. Also, if pressed, there's always the good old fall back that yeah none of that extreme stuff is actually happening anyway, so stop talking about it and you're really the one in the wrong for noticing all this stuff that is definitely never happening.

People like this person will never be able to see just how fringe they are because that's how cults work -- you can never be allowed to think you might be in one. You are the normal people and the rest of the masses are crazy.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

In my experience on other forums, the persons making accusations of others and using terms such as “gaslighting,” “straw man,” and employing the phrase “Full. Stop.” with the redundant periods are typically doing exactly what they accuse others of doing and claim expert status on all topics. All other points of view are shut down. I see those tactics in your posts more than anyone else on this entire forum. It seems as if you cannot consider that anyone with any sense could logically disagree with you. Therefore, you believe that your opinion is the only logical correct opinion.
It gets really tiresome. Especially since you post here at a pace no one else could possibly keep up with. Therefore, you’re able to effectively try and discredit every other point of view. I suspect that you have done little to change anyone’s opinion on the huge variety of topics that you are an expert on.

*I’ve braced myself for the onslaught of attacks.

No attack from me. I've watched this thread from the beginning. There are some very bright, passionate, highly articulate people contributing. Since I lean hard center right, and am a passionate 1A and 2A supporter, there is plenty I don't agree with. Yet the many persuasive comments allowed me to consider points I hadn't entertained and caused me to reflect on my positions. They haven't changed much, but that is the blessing we have been given with free speech. Free speech protects the speech I don't agree with. Sure, the snark, and the cut n paste wars get tiresome. But I enjoy the exposure to different opinions and respect the ones I don't agree with, and there are many.

 

[vector2]

The tell is that the concept of someone being moderate on some issues is so greatly offensive to this person's ideology to result in such effort to discredit them and being unable to see that the way they do this is to do exactly what they accuse others of doing (which I predicted hilariously perfectly). When an opposing viewpoint is always Hitler's viewpoint, it's easy to not have to question yourself or challenge your priors. So just make everything you don't like Hitler.

Godwin's law already?

Think elective abortion should be legally limited to 15 weeks? That's not moderate, that's extreme.

15 weeks is the cutoff in Lindsey Graham's abortion bill, so I'd say relatively far to the right, with the very far right position being a total ban.

The actual moderate position is the compromise position which already existed, i.e. Roe, i.e. somewhere around viability. People who wanted unrestricted abortion said it was too restrictive. People who wanted total bans said it was too permissive. Compromise.

Same camp as banning birth control because preventing implantation is murder.

No one here, including myself, ever made that comparison.

Think that human sexuality should not be discussed in any fashion with elementary school children because they are, well, children? That's not moderate, that's extreme.

No one here, including myself, ever said that.

Same camp as criminalizing homosexuality. It certainly couldn't be that supporting men dressing in sexuality provocative women's clothing and discussing sexual relationships with children is the extreme position.

No one here, including myself, ever made that comparison.


So, you just offered three strawmen in blindingly quick succession, but we'll just keep pretending it's me.

 

[deleted1116990]

Godwin's law already?



15 weeks is the cutoff in Lindsey Graham's abortion bill, so I'd say relatively far to the right, with the very far right position being a total ban.

The actual moderate position is the compromise position which already existed, i.e. Roe, i.e. somewhere around viability. People who wanted unrestricted abortion said it was too restrictive. People who wanted total bans said it was too permissive. Compromise.



No one here, including myself, ever made that comparison.



No one here, including myself, ever said that.



No one here, including myself, ever made that comparison.


So, you just offered three strawmen in blindingly quick succession, but we'll just keep pretending it's me.

Ok. Write as much as you want. I don't have an interest in engaging any of that and the way that you strawman'ed my comments in response to another poster as a direct retort to yours, calling them strawmen yet again using the same tactic we've already identified. You will respond because you can't help yourself.

 

[vector2]

Ok. Write as much as you want. I don't have an interest in engaging any of that and the way that you strawman'ed my comments in response to another poster as a direct retort to yours, calling them strawmen yet again using the same tactic we've already identified. You will respond because you can't help yourself.

Man, listen. No. One. Ever. Said. Those. Things.

But feel free to keep straight-up lying, I guess?

 

[nimbus]

The republicans * hopefully* learned that election denialism is a losing position. It would be good if they also learned that total abortion bans are also a loser politically -and be smart to promote a compromise federal legislation, even if they alienate some of their more extreme base.

I think the rest of their social positions (ie fighting woke practices in school and the workplace) are actually quite popular, although not on the top of voters minds. The economy they clearly have the advantage.

I will also point out in regards to scotus discussion - that election denialism WAS becoming (still is?) part of the Republican mainstream agenda and was clearly shot down (scotus refused to even hear the appeals on these few matters) there plus at the ballot box.

I know to me that sounds a bit counter to the notion scotus is 100% partisan and doesn’t consider the merits of the laws at all.

AZ republicans may lose a house seat due to election denialism but it’s good to see them stand up for their strongly held beliefs.

 

[tombreaz]

AZ republicans may lose a house seat due to election denialism but it’s good to see them stand up for their strongly held beliefs.

Total random side note but have you seen Peter Boghossian's NPR series?

 

[vector2]

.

I will also point out in regards to scotus discussion - that election denialism WAS becoming (still is?) part of the Republican mainstream agenda and was clearly shot down (scotus refused to even hear the appeals on these few matters) there plus at the ballot box.
.

I wouldn’t read too much into SCOTUS denying trumps lunatic lawsuits as evidence that the denialism is dead forever. There is an upcoming case called Moore vs. Harper

Moore v. Harper - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They will be deciding whether independent state legislature theory is a thing, I.e. can some hyper partisan legislature, given a particular interpretation of the Constitution, essentially do anything they want with regard to election laws, district maps, and electoral college electors without any checks and balances from the courts or executive branch.

We already know from the appeals process that Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch buy into this crackpot theory, and that Kav might’ve only not joined them at the time due to the lower case’s proximity to the election. After the election, the court could’ve just let precedent and the NC Supreme Court’s very standard interpretation stand, but noooooo, they just had to agree to hear a case that has very dangerous implications, especially upon the presidential elections.

 

[nimbus]

Total random side note but have you seen Peter Boghossian's NPR series?

I have not but his writing looks very interesting. Thanks for that.