DiscussMormonism.com

Yes, I’m talking about Droopy, ldsfaq, and bcspace. I’ve watched these three on this forum long enough to feel comfortable making the following generalizations about their posting style.

bcspace – doesn’t even pretend to read responses to his posts, just continues his talking points uninterrupted

ldsfaq – may try to read responses to his post, but usually fails to either understand or respond in a coherent fashion

droopy – may read a response now and then, but most likely just reads one or two sentences before launching into his canned speeches

Of course, once having drawn these conclusions about these three, I’m free to put them on ignore, or avoid the entire forum, or just not bother to read their posts. I haven’t decided yet which route to take. Problem easily solved.

But the real problem is that these three stooges represent a larger problem in this country. They represent a segment of the GOP that has been driving the party. They’re notable not just for their right-wing views, but more so for the fact that they are incapable of considering other viewpoints and think compromise is a sin. Hence, they don’t really interact with opposing viewpoints. They just listen to a word or two at the most, and launch into their canned speeches. They are the segment of the GOP that insists the GOP’s real problem is that they’re not conservative enough, and that they compromise too much.

I do not believe this problem is limited to one side of the aisle. However, I think it’s pretty clear that this currently is a big problem for republicans in particular.

Governing is the art of compromise. It’s the nature of the beast. Once one refuses to listen to the opposing viewpoints, once one refuses to compromise, then governing grinds to a halt.

I believe a healthy two-party system is the best for our country. While I normally agree with the democratic positions, I think that those positions, if taken too far, are not healthy, either. Certainly republican positions, taken too far, are unhealthy. We need balance. We need to consider opposing viewpoints. The willingness to do so is the only way human beings can overcome our naturally biased thinking process. We naturally seek out confirming evidence so we can feel good and righteous about what we already believe. We naturally disregard disconfirming evidence. We need to behave in an “unnatural” way in order to compensate for this very human flaw. That unnatural way is to try to, temporarily, assume the opposing position and look at the evidence from that viewpoint.

The republican party is at a turning point. I don’t know how to predict which direction it will turn. It seems to be experimenting with both. I do think that the current ultra-conservatives who are riding on the coattails of yesteryear’s liberal and moderate republicans (see: civil rights) may be an omen. It seems to point towards the party moderating itself. But it won’t be easy. The same republicans who want to ride on the coattails of yesteryear’s GOP liberals and moderates today want to chase them out of the party.

So I’m not making any grand prediction. This is a real problem. But there’s another problem, caused by this one. It’s the “ignore button” problem. I can put the three stooges on this forum on ignore easily enough. So I am tempted to put the three stooges writ large on ignore, too. I do so by minimizing my exposure to the news, in print or media. But that doesn’t seem to be an ideal solution when I also need to consider the opposing viewpoint. I don’t see a solution. I see only frustration.

I agree with your description of a Three Stooges writ large. In our own little community, I think there are more than just three.

I think there is a real chance that the GOP will split, forming at least two parties. Those with economically conservative and moderate social views and those with mullets, tattoos and assault weapons.

Quasimodo wrote:
I think there is a real chance that the GOP will split, forming at least two parties. Those with economically conservative and moderate social views and those with mullets, tattoos and assault weapons.

Imagining a political add that features mullets, tattoos and assault weapons!

Just add a Trans Am covered in bondo, a Members Only jacket, acid washed jeans, and a Duran Duran tune and I am taken back to very fond memories of high school!

Beastie Beastie Beastie......

We are conservatives, the base of Republicanism, the same views as nearly ALL Republicans.
What you simply don't understand is that it is YOU who have gone so far to the left in the kool-aid, you can no longer think for yourself and see how far you've gone.

Sure, there is a large segment of "libertarians", the more liberal a.k.a. progressives of our party, legal drugs, legal abortions, etc. etc. I don't think Droopy or BCspace identify as this, so really, you're just attacking a straw-man, not who we actually are.

Ceeboo wrote:

Quasimodo wrote:
I think there is a real chance that the GOP will split, forming at least two parties. Those with economically conservative and moderate social views and those with mullets, tattoos and assault weapons.

Imagining a political add that features mullets, tattoos and assault weapons!

Just add a Trans Am covered in bondo, a Members Only jacket, acid washed jeans, and a Duran Duran tune and I am taken back to very fond memories of high school!

I was so proud of my Members Only jacket. I think my dear wife sent it off to Goodwill many, many years ago along with a closet full of very ratty sweatshirts and a leather jacket. She keeps all of her clothes, but has no problem dumping mine.

Quasimodo wrote:
I was so proud of my Members Only jacket.

Yeah, me too, friend! (Loved that jacket! )

True story: I remember being so mad at my mom when she said I couldn't get a mullet (think I was around 13-14). As I recall, she said "son, you can get a mullet the day you move your mullet-head out of my house!

Love my momma!

Peace,
Never-Mo and Never-Mu Ceeboo

ldsfaqs wrote:Beastie Beastie Beastie......

We are conservatives, the base of Republicanism, the same views as nearly ALL Republicans.
What you simply don't understand is that it is YOU who have gone so far to the left in the kool-aid, you can no longer think for yourself and see how far you've gone.

Sure, there is a large segment of "libertarians", the more liberal a.k.a. progressives of our party, legal drugs, legal abortions, etc. etc. I don't think Droopy or BCspace identify as this, so really, you're just attacking a straw-man, not who we actually are.

This post illustrates beastie’s point quite nicely; thanks for posting it.

In beastie’s post, she doesn’t mention, much less criticize, a single conservative belief--whether or not you have the same views as nearlyall Republicans has nothing to do with her post. She says nothing about the proper size and scope of government. She says precisely nothing about gun control, immigration policy, abortion, climate change, the tax rate on capital gains, same-sex marriage, the Brazilian rainforest, earned-income tax credits, corn subsidies, marijuana, the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, renewable energy, quantitative easing, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Military, the Department of Education...

What she does criticize is your personal inability to engage in a productive conversation. You demonstrate no ability to effectively listen to others and respond coherently. Stephen Covey suggested that people seek first to understand, and then to be understood. You don’t attempt to understand others at all: you have already decided that people on the left are brainwashed idiots who can’t think for themselves. You come here to pontificate and insult, not to dialogue and learn.

That unnatural way is to try to, temporarily, assume the opposing position and look at the evidence from that viewpoint.

No wonder you're frustrated. I don't think it's really possible to look at evidence from an opposing viewpoint any more than it is possible to be another person. I don't really think we need to listen to each other any more. Our differences are clear. I think we need separate countries and the freedom to practice our political beliefs about which system of government works best in the world. To me that would give people a real choice. I don't think voting really gives people a choice. The country is too big and too factionalized to franchise everyone. If human beings did evolve to live in groups, it was small groups, not giant nations like the USA.

ajax18 wrote:I don't think it's really possible to look at evidence from an opposing viewpoint

ajax18 wrote:
No wonder you're frustrated. I don't think it's really possible to look at evidence from an opposing viewpoint any more than it is possible to be another person. I don't really think we need to listen to each other any more. Our differences are clear. I think we need separate countries and the freedom to practice our political beliefs about which system of government works best in the world. To me that would give people a real choice. I don't think voting really gives people a choice. The country is too big and too factionalized to franchise everyone. If human beings did evolve to live in groups, it was small groups, not giant nations like the USA.

This is possibly one of the most depressing posts I've ever read.

Going with your dream of secession, however, you do realize that most of the red states take far more in federal funding than they give in return, don't you? In other words, the blue states would be flush with cash while the red states, in their new country, would be broke.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha ... scal-union

Even more depressing is your assertion that it's not possible to look at evidence from an opposing viewpoint. If you can't, you're doomed. You're enslaved to the built-in hard-wiring errors of the human brain.