Just one of the many analogies I chuckle at (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

The other day I was musing about how Susan Sarandon said something that was a relatively innocent criticism of Israel, and she got very frustrated that people accused her of anti-semitism. Then her agency cancelled her because of the backlash. (I read what she said, it wasn't bad at all I don't think, but she was a victim of the successful labelling of the term).

"Over-used word, now-almost-trite, being applied liberally to anyone and everyone who criticizes Israel, and I'm getting CANCELLED because of precisely that over-use of the term!"

--- that's what she's got to be thinking, right??? I almost felt sorry for her, (until I remembered she's spent a lifetime of dumb celebrity comments with little to no repercussion). Anyway, I thought to myself - YES - Now you know how it feels to be a conservative vs. the term 'Racism'. EXACTLY!!! You call the police with a noise complaint and God forbid it happens to be a black woman, now all of a sudden she's the victim playing on black privilege and you're the "oppressor", what a deal mcneil!

But today's version is this:

James O'Keefe reportedly fuels threats to Arizona migrant center

Right-wingers like Kari Lake and Elon Musk helped boost the provocateur's false claim he found a "secret" center for migrants. But the center isn't secret at all.

www.msnbc.com

Lake responded to O’Keefe’s video with bigoted claims, popular among conservatives, that migrant arrivals constitute an “invasion” of the U.S. “Every time I fly out of the Phoenix Airport (which is often) there are busses unloading illegals who pour into the airport & fill planes headed to cities all across the country,” Lake posted on social media. "This is what an invasion looks like." (Lake can't have seen many actual invasions if this is what she thinks one looks like.)

Umm, yeah - THAT'S how we feel about the "insurrection".

I see these interesting things all the time how both sides are accusing the other of stuff they do, or something like that.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I see these interesting things all the time how both sides are accusing the other of stuff they do, or something like that.

It is sad that the two parties and their members have become so polarized as to over-inflate even the simplest comment into a topic suitable for filing a lawsuit or filing criminal charges. It shows just how badly polarized we have become.

 

[Isaac]

I agree. Everyone is having to be so careful with their words, beyond what ought to be the norm. I mean we all try to pick our words, sure, but this has gotten out of hand.

I.E. Nikki's response about slavery or about the civil war - I understand what she meant. You could say so many things. She was trying to what she felt was the underlying constitutional issues or freedoms that might allow a person to say "I want to keep my slaves therefore I am seceding" or something like that, of course she knows about slavery

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Part of the problem is that the Civil War WAS about States' Rights - because slavery was a States' Right at the time. The argument and secession were about whether the North could do something to interfere with something that was seen as a States' Right - slavery - at the time. But if you say it that way now, folks immediately jump on your stuff because they want to jump on a perceived higher moral ground without regard to whether the statement was true.

Let's be clear. Slavery was abhorrent. But the North was interfering with the Southern States' legal rights at the time. It isn't, by any means, of the same magnitude, but Joe Biden has been ordering changes in stoves and refrigerators lately. Because of all the Trump / Biden election noise and legal issues, nobody seems to have noticed Biden's Draconian attempts to take over our kitchens. But here we have a politician overriding personal culinary decisions. Maybe some crowd of chefs will eventually filet him with their filet knives. Or a crowd of house-spouses ride him out of town on a wet mop. I wouldn't wish that on him, but I surely think he is far over the line.

 

[Isaac]

Agree.

And if someone were to sincerely argue that the South was in the right from a constitutional perspective, (meaning yes, slavery is abhorrent, but technically they had the legal right), we ought to be able to entertain the idea from a legal perspective without assuming the person thinks slavery is good. Of course this wouldn't happen in today's world, except maybe in a university or law school setting, but if it did it's sad that we're so quick to jump down the throats that we wouldn't allow a discussion about it.

I don't think this necessarily, just spitballing it. I've forgotten most of what I learned in con law in college and in law school I didn't take any con law type classes although criminal procedure has plenty of it mixed in.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It's about gotchas, everyone's waiting for the next misstep.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Susan Sarandon

you know what else she said? she said she's open to anyone and everyone in terms of a serious relationship. I think her words were something like "young, old, black, white, any other color. I don't care. I'm open to anyone". Now that's a bit strange at her age!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

"young, old, black, white, any other color. I don't care. I'm open to anyone"

Sounds like desperation?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And if someone were to sincerely argue that the South was in the right from a constitutional perspective, (meaning yes, slavery is abhorrent, but technically they had the legal right), we ought to be able to entertain the idea from a legal perspective without assuming the person thinks slavery is good.

True. We cannot forget that the original version of the U.S. Constitution included discussions of apportionment to include instructions on how to count slaves. We evolved socially from that (and legally) but cannot ignore that it was legal at the time.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Sounds like desperation?

you never know with movie stars man. they are all screwed up.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It is sad that the two parties and their members have become so polarized as to over-inflate even the simplest comment into a topic suitable for filing a lawsuit or filing criminal charges. It shows just how badly polarized we have become.

The average Americans are not so different in their opinions. What is different is the polarization of their news feed.

The Democrats see "families" immigrating. They never see the hoards of single, military aged men. They are told being poor is a reason to ask for asylum. The money these "migrants" are paying to coyotes for the trip is never mentioned. The terms these people agree to when they don't have the cash is never mentioned. They essentially become indentured workers and the women and young boys become sex slaves. The Democrats in the Senate and House flatly refuse to go to the border to see the chaos. And the actual number of people crossing the border is never discussed. Nor is the cost to the American public of feeding, housing, clothing, providing medical care and education to people FOR YEARS who have nothing but very low paying skills and little education so they have few prospects even if they spoke English.

If you told the average American that 9 million people have entered our country illegally since Biden took office and that federal employees are cutting down barbed wire and other barriers to facilitate the illegal crossings. American citizens are being displaced from hospitals, nursing homes, even schools. TWO THOUSAND students were displaced last week from a school in Brooklyn so it could be used as a shelter for illegal aliens. And then went on to explain what asylum really means and it isn't "I don't like my life, I deserve to come to America and feed off the teet of your welfare system" and just how much these people cost us, they might pull back on their support.

Our information has been bifurcated. That is what causes the divide, not the basic opinions of the public. People hear and see very different news. Social Media exacerbates this by using confirmation bias. If you click on this, we feed you that otherwise, you might see a different opinion. You can prove this to yourself very easily. For two days, click on every article you can find about the British Royal family. See what happens. If that doesn't convince you that you are being manipulated by your news feed, I don't know what would.

When you read a "news" article, read with a critical eye. Look for "purple" words. These are words or phrases that use words with negative connotations when neutral synonyms are commonly available. Like the Liberals are always changing the language. You can't use the word pedophile. Now you have to use "youth attracted person". But. if the article is about someone political and their politics is conservative, the author will always use pedophile and never use "youth attracted person". Do you know the opinion of the author as you read? If so, that person is not a reporter, he is an opinion writer and you are not reading news. Facts that don't support the opinion will be conveniently ignored.

 

[Pat Hartman]

True. We cannot forget that the original version of the U.S. Constitution included discussions of apportionment to include instructions on how to count slaves. We evolved socially from that (and legally) but cannot ignore that it was legal at the time.

This counting method is now always presented as a negative. Look, the founding "fathers" thought of slaves as less than human but it was just the opposite. Slaves were property and therefore not human and couldn't be counted but the Constitution provided for them. Counting them at 100% would have given the southern states too much power and that power would have kept the slaves in bondage for much longer so it would have had the opposite effect as the negative Nellies want you to think. It wouldn't free the slaves, it would have let their masters continue to own them because the slaves were never given the ability to vote so essentially their owners voted for them. And the vote of the slave owner is always to keep the slaves. The large cities with the poor inner cities are the modern day plantation and the slave owners still own the vote. But the people are finally rising up and throwing off their shackles.

 

[Isaac]

The average Americans are not so different in their opinions. What is different is the polarization of their news feed.

The Democrats see "families" immigrating. They never see the hoards of single, military aged men. They are told being poor is a reason to ask for asylum. The money these "migrants" are paying to coyotes for the trip is never mentioned. The terms these people agree to when they don't have the cash is never mentioned. They essentially become indentured workers and the women and young boys become sex slaves. The Democrats in the Senate and House flatly refuse to go to the border to see the chaos. And the actual number of people crossing the border is never discussed. Nor is the cost to the American public of feeding, housing, clothing, providing medical care and education to people FOR YEARS who have nothing but very low paying skills and little education so they have few prospects even if they spoke English.

If you told the average American that 9 million people have entered our country illegally since Biden took office and that federal employees are cutting down barbed wire and other barriers to facilitate the illegal crossings. American citizens are being displaced from hospitals, nursing homes, even schools. TWO THOUSAND students were displaced last week from a school in Brooklyn so it could be used as a shelter for illegal aliens. And then went on to explain what asylum really means and it isn't "I don't like my life, I deserve to come to America and feed off the teet of your welfare system" and just how much these people cost us, they might pull back on their support.

Our information has been bifurcated. That is what causes the divide, not the basic opinions of the public. People hear and see very different news. Social Media exacerbates this by using confirmation bias. If you click on this, we feed you that otherwise, you might see a different opinion. You can prove this to yourself very easily. For two days, click on every article you can find about the British Royal family. See what happens. If that doesn't convince you that you are being manipulated by your news feed, I don't know what would.

When you read a "news" article, read with a critical eye. Look for "purple" words. These are words or phrases that use words with negative connotations when neutral synonyms are commonly available. Like the Liberals are always changing the language. You can't use the word pedophile. Now you have to use "youth attracted person". But. if the article is about someone political and their politics is conservative, the author will always use pedophile and never use "youth attracted person". Do you know the opinion of the author as you read? If so, that person is not a reporter, he is an opinion writer and you are not reading news. Facts that don't support the opinion will be conveniently ignored.

You make some very good points.

Are people's opinions really that polarized IF they were all aware of all information? If they were all aware of the raw truth on all issues, where would we all end up? I suspect somewhere between me and @NauticalGent , just a wild guess.