Jump to content
  • 2
DeeVious Dagger

REPUBLICAN BASHING IS NOT OK

Question

I am a republican like half the us is republican yet lately theres Trump and republican bashing going on and clubs arent taking it seriously enough. I dont care what your politics are but you dont discuss politics or religion in a club. I was told free speech... ok but if i argued back Im the one who gets the penalty. Whether we agree on politics we should at least try to be civil we are here to have fun. I am calling for a boycott of this club... any opinions on this? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Thanks. Good point. 350,000,000 / 7,700,000,000 = 4.5% ... you are right. But in a discussion about Republicans, a strictly American thing it seems out of context. In regard to SL pertinent percentages would be conservative versus liberal or free vs totalitarian.

Yes but I did specifically say I was talking about the world as a whole and it was in response to Alwin's post. According to the stats we have (which admittably is a bit out of date) the majority of SL users are non-USians too.

Be careful how much you bother the world with your local problems. When I wrote my first reply here I was logged on and happened to stand right next to two landcut 4x4 plots, each with a big ugly pro-Trump poster on it and of course, as a mainlander I remember only too well the hooligan who had a sky sign with "Hillary Lies" plastered over half a sim in the Snowland. Of course, that kind of undignified trollish hate propaganda doesn't exactly give a positive impression to somebody who comes from a civilized nation but then again, for all I know the other team may be just as bad and it's jsut a coincidence I haven't seen anything like it from them. It's none of my business anyway and more to the point: I don't want it to be any of my business so regardless of which team (if any) you happen to support I'd really prefer you kept it to yourself when in polite company.

There are 195 nations in the world today, and of course far more interest groups of all kinds. How do you think SL would have looked if everybody brought their personal and national conflicts into it this way?

Edited by ChinRey
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Interesting set of responses. I am going to pick an chose which I respond to.

1 hour ago, Daniel Regenbogen said:

 

Okay, I snap the bait. If you want to talk about indoctrinating: watch Fox "News" or read what the Liar-in-Chief writes on Twitter.

It is also quite funny talking about the ideology of failed systems - while the big majority of those who critizise the current US situation don't look at those failed systems but at well working systems like in many European countries. Systems that don't put you out of your house to be able to pay your medical bills or paying back your student loans.

It is also funny when you talk about triggering a snowflake - look at what all you wrote and think about who got triggered...

BTW, the OP made a typical mistake often made especially by republican americans: thinking that the whole world (in this case the whole SL) rotates around their own little backyard aka the USA.

There is a Left side media driven option. I bet you think you have it right?

What makes you think I was triggered?

Unfortunately, that is WAY TOO TRUE. Europeans are far more cosmopolitan than Americans. It is a common aspect of being American because we deal with few people other than Americans. That is just the way it is.

1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

Yes but I did specifically say ...

Be careful how much you bother the world with your local problems. When I wrote my first reply here I was logged on and happened to stand right next to two landcut 4x4 plots, each with a big ugly pro-Trump poster on it and of course, as a mainlander I remember only too well the hooligan who had a sky sign with "Hillary Lies" plastered over half a sim in the Snowland. Of course, that kind of undignified trollish hate propaganda doesn't exactly give a positive impression to somebody who comes from a civilized nation but then again, for all I know the other team may be just as bad and it's jsut a coincidence I haven't seen anything like it from them. It's none of my business anyway and more to the point: I don't want it to be any of my business so regardless of which team (if any) you happen to support I'd really prefer you kept it to yourself when in polite company.

There are 195 nations in the world today, and of course far more interest groups of all kinds. How do you think SL would have looked if everybody brought their personal and national conflicts into it this way?

True that.

Before we can decide which team is worse we have to come up with some objective form of scoring...

Pretty much as it does now.

31 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

As does the right.  There are no angels on this battlefield.  Rather than accuse either side of being more duplicitous than the other, I prefer to watch what both have to say and to make up my own mind about where the truth lies ( mindful of the fact that the phrase "the truth lies" is, itself, a loaded concept ).  

That's a very good point.  In the context of this forum, though, a political "good idea" devolves quickly into "my camp is better than yours," with little room for reasoned discussion. As I said before, any argument I might add is already familiar to both sides and is not likely to persuade either to change, and there are very few undecided people out there.  There are plenty of good ideas and bad ideas, but little agreement about which ones are which.  Stoking the flames by simply repeating the rhetoric seems pointless -- a recipe for failure.  I choose not to make a delicate situation worse.

Very true. It sounds like you are talking about arguing opinions, to which there is no end. Alinsky didn't make a clear point about 'opinion'. However, he was clear on avoiding any fact that put one at a disadvantage in achieving their goal/agenda. Unfortunately, not only the Left has chosen to follow that advice. Both sides resort to emotional opinions and name calling.

How does one listen to both sides and then avoid confirmation bias?

Good ideas do not devolve. People attempting to debate ideas tend to devolve the conversation. I think that whoever moves to labeling shows they lack substantive merit in their arguments. Thus they have little choice but to adopt Alinsky tactics. Once those come into play I agree there is little point in continuing the conversation.

Repeating a standard line of facts phrases is not debating or carrying on a dialog. Only the non-thinker would imagine it could change minds. Even well supported facts often do not change minds already made up and closed. It takes some creativity to get past the delusions inculcated into people's thinking and shift their hardened opinions. People that haven't studied psychology have little idea of how to get past someone's personal beliefs based in emotional thinking.

Professional counselors never change minds by 'telling' a person something. It takes way more creative thinking. So, you might like the little book Loserthink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Good ideas do not devolve. People attempting to debate ideas tend to devolve the conversation. I think that whoever moves to labeling shows they lack substantive merit in their arguments. Thus they have little choice but to adopt Alinsky tactics. Once those come into play I agree there is little point in continuing the conversation.

And there we agree.  It is the discussion that falls apart, leaving us no wiser than we started but having raised our collective blood pressure.  As long as we can debate verifiable information and consider its implications, debate is healthy.  That level of disagreement is what civil discourse is about.  Sadly, too much of the political rhetoric in forums like this is mired in armed mudslinging about which village has the greater number of idiots.  

My own favorite guide, by the way, is Fisher and Ury's Getting To YES, which has gone through several editions now.  Their recommendation is to avoid thinking in terms of "sides" and "positions" and to focus more on understanding what each contributor in a negotiation would consider an ideal goal. The challenge, then, is for all participants to work together toward finding a solution that will satisfy a goal they can all be comfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

16 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Repeating a standard line of facts phrases is not debating or carrying on a dialog. Only the non-thinker would imagine it could change minds. Even well supported facts often do not change minds already made up and closed. It takes some creativity to get past the delusions inculcated into people's thinking and shift their hardened opinions. People that haven't studied psychology have little idea of how to get past someone's personal beliefs based in emotional thinking.

in  a public forum we (we generally) are not trying to change the mind of the person we are debating with. We debate the merits of the arguments

what we do is show any untruths that may underpin the other person's argument. Like as sometimes happens a person claims a constitutional right that doesn't exists. So we point this out and show the evidence that their argument is factually untrue.  The person can accept or reject this as they please

when we debate, what we are doing is showing when an argument is based on a false premise. That any argument we might make ourselves is factually based, or when opinionated then there is a logical base on which our argument rests

that we might think that another person is delusional or hardened is immaterial. We are not trying to convert the other person. We are not missionaries. We are debating the arguments, not the person   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
59 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

And there we agree.  It is the discussion that falls apart, leaving us no wiser than we started but having raised our collective blood pressure.  As long as we can debate verifiable information and consider its implications, debate is healthy.  That level of disagreement is what civil discourse is about.  Sadly, too much of the political rhetoric in forums like this is mired in armed mudslinging about which village has the greater number of idiots.  

My own favorite guide, by the way, is Fisher and Ury's Getting To YES, which has gone through several editions now.  Their recommendation is to avoid thinking in terms of "sides" and "positions" and to focus more on understanding what each contributor in a negotiation would consider an ideal goal. The challenge, then, is for all participants to work together toward finding a solution that will satisfy a goal they can all be comfortable with.

If one reacts with higher blood pressure doesn't that signal an emotional reaction?

One should never attempt debate with the unarmed.

This doesn't happen here or in any impromptu scenario I can think of. So, it sounds impractical to me. I tend to go with the things and ideas I can do without dependance on the cooperation of others.

58 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

in  a public forum we (we generally) are not trying to change the mind of the person we are debating with. We debate the merits of the arguments

what we do is show any untruths that may underpin the other person's argument. Like as sometimes happens a person claims a constitutional right that doesn't exists. So we point this out and show the evidence that their argument is factually untrue.  The person can accept or reject this as they please

when we debate, what we are doing is showing when an argument is based on a false premise. That any argument we might make ourselves is factually based, or when opinionated then there is a logical base on which our argument rests

that we might think that another person is delusional or hardened is immaterial. We are not trying to convert the other person. We are not missionaries. We are debating the arguments, not the person   

 

I am not sure I believe that. I see most arguing their opinions and providing little information with any merit.

I think that is the idea... and in a professional debate that might be the case. But here and in many places, I think many take things personally and debate the person.

21 minutes ago, sirhc DeSantis said:

People still read Alinsky? Explains a lot, then

Of course. If one watches any news or political speech they can see the tactics in use.

Hillary wrote her thesis on Alinsky. She considered him to lack enough radical thought to continue following his teaching. She appears to have built on his foundation. Many still use Alinsky to model their organizing efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I am not sure I believe that. I see most arguing their opinions and providing little information with any merit.

I think that is the idea... and in a professional debate that might be the case. But here and in many places, I think many take things personally and debate the person.

when I say we, I mean that's what we strive to be, which I think is what most people try to be. Sure we can all have our off days and have a rant. I have had my own rants at times. But I do think most of us try to keep that to a minimum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

If one reacts with higher blood pressure doesn't that signal an emotional reaction?

Yes, and that's both understandable and appropriate.  A discussion without some level of emotional commitment is dry and likely to be both timid and unproductive.  The thing to watch out for is excessive emotion, by which I mean letting emotion become the primary driver.  If the goal is to WIN ( that is, to humiliate or intimidate the other parties), there's something seriously wrong.

12 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

One should never attempt debate with the unarmed.

Indeed.  Mark Twain said something quotable along those lines.

13 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I think that [ the Fisher and Urey approach] is the idea... and in a professional debate that might be the case. But here and in many places, I think many take things personally and debate the person.

I agree, which circles back to my initial rationale for staying largely out of the fray here.  At the extreme risk of accidentally implying that I am thinking about any specific person at all, I am reminded of a sign that a colleague posted on his door many decades ago: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig." Once one person in a discussion assumes the role of a pig (or, worse, starts treating the other person as if she is a pig), everyone needs to step back and cool off.  Personally, I usually choose not to join in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"Most SL residents aren't in the USA"

Well, SL is based in San Francisco, which is (however much we regret it) part of the USA.

So, you're ALL 'Mericans, by corporate association.

Welcome to the Land of the Free, y'all.  Play nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/29/2020 at 6:35 PM, DeeVious Dagger said:

I am a republican like half the us is republican yet lately theres Trump and republican bashing going on and clubs arent taking it seriously enough. I dont care what your politics are but you dont discuss politics or religion in a club. I was told free speech... ok but if i argued back Im the one who gets the penalty. Whether we agree on politics we should at least try to be civil we are here to have fun. I am calling for a boycott of this club... any opinions on this? 

You are assuming an awful lot here.. Just because someone is bashing Trump and his flock does not mean they are Democrats or even Americans. 

You can discuss anything you want in a club, with the rules of the club that is.  Free speech has ZERO to do with SL. My land my rules. 

Yes yes, boycott the club. I'm sure they will miss you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2020 at 1:56 AM, Skyler Pancake said:

Because calling leftists snowflakes and purposely trying to 'trigger' them isn't bashing either.

 

🤲🙏🤲🙏

 

Both sides have their rhetoric and insults. Acknowledging that you're just as brainwashed as they are, but from a different perspective, will let you actually listen and try to figure things out for yourself.

You inferred the Leftist bit. I didn't say or imply that. You jumped to that conclusion.

Nor did I suggest everyone try triggering someone. I suggested this person 'trigger' by speaking for their beliefs. I could have been clearer. But, it did leave you for you to misunderstand and you did. You appear to be one of the people that can't tolerate people speaking their true when it may upset someone. I doubt you can even clearly perceive the idea of speaking ones beliefs.  

Sad that you think it is all rhetoric and insults. Too bad you could do more than participate in the rhetoric and insults. You could have added actual substance. You could have tried to refute the behavior of snowflakes and reveal then as caring, free speech loving, well  informed rational thinkers. Why didn't you?

Any one voicing diverse views will awake the intolerant and they will start bashing. It is what they have been conditioned to do and they reflexively respond. Why shouldn't we make fun of them and find them despicable? 

Also, are you going to acknowledge how brainwashed you are... since both sides are? Or is it only those that disagree with you that are brainwashed? And how do you determine who is or isn't brainwashed?

Edited by Nalates Urriah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There are "Trump 2020" signs around mainland, all the same. Clearly there's some Republican campaigning effort in SL. Maybe find out who's behind that and see if they're scheduling any rallies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I know better than to chime in on this thread, yet I can't for the life of me figure out if the OP is just trolling or making the most ironic thread I recall reading on these forums....

Quote

I am a republican like half the us is republican yet lately theres Trump and republican bashing going on and clubs arent taking it seriously enough.

You will note the date of the OP's post as May 29th 2020.

Just the day before on the 28th, President Trump retweeted a video of a supporter saying that the "only good Democrat is a dead Democrat."

I sincerely wish that NONE of us would throw petty insults at people in both the public and the private sector, or at our allies from other countries. And yes I agree with the OP that all of us in second life should hold ourselves and our children to a much higher standard than that shown by the current President of the United States.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...