The exodus of the blue avatars

[OSR stands with Israel]

This place is a bit of an echo chamber to an extent (see PA-Sen thread as a prime example), but what do you expect? You get people are more likely to be online, and consequently far more likely to be liberal than the typical population. It’s a lot like Reddit in that regard.

Except this is not really a case when you look at Atlas related discords where you would see the parity between red and blue avatars is no where near as stark as it is on here. It kinda shows more or less the problem is RL polarization has hit this site hard and red and blue avatars no longer can discuss politics with each other without everything becoming a mess.

You know what’s a mess? You not accepting my buddy request

Wait you sent me one, cause I had not seen it. Well I accepted so sorry about the wait

[T'Chenka]

One major problem I see here is that you are assuming that Democratic positions on public policy are the only justifiable and morally correct ones, and that Republicans need to be "enlightened" and given a clear path out of their ignorance. If only they are able to see the light and repent for the evil of their ways, then can they thrive. That would imply that a one-party system ought to prevail.

Your entire argument here is predicated on the idea that the Dems are "normal-ish" left or center-left party, and the Republicans are a "normal-ish" right or center-right party. Your logic doesn't take into account a number of extremely important factors, including one of the parties becoming anti-democracy, one of the parties taking their fight against civil rights too far, one party deciding that facts and science are getting in their way so they become anti-science and promote "alternative facts", etc.

Basically, your viewpoint here only applies in a "normal" situation, which 2022 America is not in. YES, the Democrat position that climate change is real and some sort of human intervention is needed is the only justifiable and morally correct position. YES, the Democrat position that America should remain a democracy with free and fair elections is the only justifiable and morally correct position. We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

I'm not trying to be an a$$h0le here, but this premise that "all ideas are equally valid" that favours Republicans happens to fit the definition of "cultural marxism" that the far-right claims to be at war with. Just saying.

[Aurelius]

We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

Ding dong your opinion is wrong. You have the right to stay in your house forever if you are afraid of getting the cold. You do not have the right to force me to live according to your irrational fear.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It’s ironic how Chenka is just as moralistic as the religious right is , just of course in a different manner

[Santander]

T'Chenka is one of the dumbest posters in the history of Atlas.

[Conservatopia]

Blue avatars should learn to be more like yellow avatars.

You've got it easy, you've been granted total immunity.

[Aurelius]

T'Chenka is one of the dumbest posters in the history of Atlas.

He's got a lot of competition. This is a forum where wbrocks and PittsburghSteel and GP270watch (and others) are active posters. For a long time I refused to put anyone on my ignore list out of Muh Principle. In the past month I abandoned that and started putting dunces on it so I don't have to lose brain cells from their posts. I'm already running out of spots.

[T'Chenka]

It’s ironic how Chenka is just as moralistic as the religious right is , just of course in a different manner

I make no apologies for it.

[jamestroll]

Thing is.. white people FEAR black people more than other minorities. Should they? Absolutely not. When I lived in St. Louis, did I avoid black areas? Absolutely not. But I know most whites fear blacks, which contributes to their lower economic success.

No longer can I assume the right wing is less violent. While I do not carry a gun, I do carry less lethal weapons when I venture out into the wilderness as I am deathly afraid a conservative will try to attack me.

Friendo...

Black people need to be protected. I grew up in St. Louis as a young kid, but what became completely apparent when I lived there as a cameo appearance as an adult is that people are people.

Whites fear blacks which creates a mutual distrust.

I view blacks as a group that needs protection from oppression.

Hanging around bad neighborhoods is like driving my car. It can realistically risk my life if I did it all day non-stop my entire life, but of course I'm almost certain to survive any given attempt. I just saw it as ironic that you're stating almost simultaneously that you have a fear of being attacked by a conservative in the wilderness.

Oh.. I guess it is unusual that

I feel pretty safe in a neighborhood full of black thugs but a bit scared around let's say a town in Utah full of Mormons. LOL

But yea.. I suspect conservatives wouldn't randomly attack me.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

If blue avies want to make the foolish and ignorant decision to leave this blog, then fine that's their choice. But they're going to come to regret not staying here under the glorious shade and wisdom of OC.

[Calthrina950]

One major problem I see here is that you are assuming that Democratic positions on public policy are the only justifiable and morally correct ones, and that Republicans need to be "enlightened" and given a clear path out of their ignorance. If only they are able to see the light and repent for the evil of their ways, then can they thrive. That would imply that a one-party system ought to prevail.

Your entire argument here is predicated on the idea that the Dems are "normal-ish" left or center-left party, and the Republicans are a "normal-ish" right or center-right party. Your logic doesn't take into account a number of extremely important factors, including one of the parties becoming anti-democracy, one of the parties taking their fight against civil rights too far, one party deciding that facts and science are getting in their way so they become anti-science and promote "alternative facts", etc.

Basically, your viewpoint here only applies in a "normal" situation, which 2022 America is not in. YES, the Democrat position that climate change is real and some sort of human intervention is needed is the only justifiable and morally correct position. YES, the Democrat position that America should remain a democracy with free and fair elections is the only justifiable and morally correct position. We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

I'm not trying to be an a$$h0le here, but this premise that "all ideas are equally valid" that favours Republicans happens to fit the definition of "cultural marxism" that the far-right claims to be at war with. Just saying.

You are obviously aware that I been very critical of the direction Republicans have gone in, particularly with regards to Trump. I am not a Trumpist, far from it, and I've generally been accused in the past of taking a "#both sides" approach to politics. I think it is inherently unfair to accuse all Democrats, or all Republicans, of possessing the exact same viewpoints on every issue, and that is done too frequently here. It is also inherently unfair to assert that one political party is morally correct on every issue.

Let us assume that we were in an alternate timeline, in which Trump had never become President and the Republican Party resembled that of the Bush Era. I have no doubt that there would still be harsh criticism of it and its adherents on this forum, and you would still have assertions that only one train of thought is sustainable or defensible. What you're saying here is that this forum should be a space for only one train of thought. I don't believe that Leip - who founded Atlas more than twenty years ago - would have intended for this to be an echo chamber.

[T'Chenka]

You are obviously aware that I been very critical of the direction Republicans have gone in, particularly with regards to Trump. I am not a Trumpist, far from it, and I've generally been accused in the past of taking a "#both sides" approach to politics. I think it is inherently unfair to accuse all Democrats, or all Republicans, of possessing the exact same viewpoints on every issue, and that is done too frequently here. It is also inherently unfair to assert that one political party is morally correct on every issue.

Let us assume that we were in an alternate timeline, in which Trump had never become President and the Republican Party resembled that of the Bush Era. I have no doubt that there would still be harsh criticism of it and its adherents on this forum, and you would still have assertions that only one train of thought is sustainable or defensible. What you're saying here is that this forum should be a space for only one train of thought. I don't believe that Leip - who founded Atlas more than twenty years ago - would have intended for this to be an echo chamber.

On the contrary, I would like to see a forum with a bunch of Bush-era Republicans. Obviously there would be harsh criticisms, which is inevitable, and you would still see people like myself holding the viewpoints that Bushism isn't defensible, but we would not be as vocal and passionate about it, as Bushism isn't at war with democracy and reality as much as Trumpism is.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You are obviously aware that I been very critical of the direction Republicans have gone in, particularly with regards to Trump. I am not a Trumpist, far from it, and I've generally been accused in the past of taking a "#both sides" approach to politics. I think it is inherently unfair to accuse all Democrats, or all Republicans, of possessing the exact same viewpoints on every issue, and that is done too frequently here. It is also inherently unfair to assert that one political party is morally correct on every issue.

Let us assume that we were in an alternate timeline, in which Trump had never become President and the Republican Party resembled that of the Bush Era. I have no doubt that there would still be harsh criticism of it and its adherents on this forum, and you would still have assertions that only one train of thought is sustainable or defensible. What you're saying here is that this forum should be a space for only one train of thought. I don't believe that Leip - who founded Atlas more than twenty years ago - would have intended for this to be an echo chamber.

On the contrary, I would like to see a forum with a bunch of Bush-era Republicans. Obviously there would be harsh criticisms, which is inevitable, and you would still see people like myself holding the viewpoints that Bushism isn't defensible, but we would not be as vocal and passionate about it, as Bushism isn't at war with democracy and reality as much as Trumpism is.

Many Democrats in the Bush years called Bush a fascist for the patriot act, their use of signing statements and the popularization of the "unitary executive theory" , and GITMO Bay especially those who were progressive

[Del Tachi]

I'll make another comment, and say that this thread certainly does demonstrate why nothing will change with regards to the current situation on this forum. Blue and red avatars have fundamentally different views of what this forum is and what it should be. It is unlikely that they will find any sort of common ground on this. Red avatars do not believe that this forum is inherently exclusive of opposing political viewpoints and believe that blue avatars are simply incapable of debating properly or defending their beliefs. Blue avatars think it is a waste of time to contribute in a space which, they feel, is hostile to them.

This sounds like a microcosm of American politics.

Democrats tell Republicans that GOP modern policies are illogical and/or immoral, and try to debate with Republicans in order to show that the GOP position doesn't hold up to logic and/or morality when scrutinized. Republicans USUALLY either refuse to debate altogether or they argue in bad faith so they can "win / stalemate" debates, even though the entire reason the Dems wanted to debate in the first place was to have a good faith discussion and show conservatives that the Dem position is more logical and/or more moral.

One MIGHT deduce from this that the Republicans don't really have superior ideas these days, otherwise they would be more willing (and maybe even eager) to debate in good faith and show the Dems why their left wing ideas make less sense than GOP ideas.

Nonsense.  Liberals and conservatives disagree on some very fundamental things.  It is not in "bad faith" to reject how your opponent frames an issue; instead, it is (when done well) the highest and most essential from of debate. 

The GOP position "doesn't hold up to logic/morality" [to you] because you've probably accepted as an a priori truth a value system that assumes secular humanism, scientism, moral relativism, etc.  Conservatives haven't.  That doesn't make either side wrong, but it doesn't suggest there are multiple perspectives on any single question.

This truth has been a casualty of social media/opinion journalism's obsession with "fact checking" everything in the Trump era.  The idea that inherently debatable (or even scientific) questions can be given a binary "true" or "false" rating feeds the divisiveness of our era. 

[John Dule]

If we want to solve this problem, maybe we should be promoting some blue avs to moderator roles so that newbie Republicans can have people who are the same color as them in leadership roles to look up to. After all, blue avs are a minority on this site, and they run the risk of being oppressed by the red majority, which has historically monopolized power for itself. A little affirmative action in their favor will be a good way to undo this systemically systemic systematic system-wide bias.

[Vosem]

I'll make another comment, and say that this thread certainly does demonstrate why nothing will change with regards to the current situation on this forum. Blue and red avatars have fundamentally different views of what this forum is and what it should be. It is unlikely that they will find any sort of common ground on this. Red avatars do not believe that this forum is inherently exclusive of opposing political viewpoints and believe that blue avatars are simply incapable of debating properly or defending their beliefs. Blue avatars think it is a waste of time to contribute in a space which, they feel, is hostile to them.

This sounds like a microcosm of American politics.

Democrats tell Republicans that GOP modern policies are illogical and/or immoral, and try to debate with Republicans in order to show that the GOP position doesn't hold up to logic and/or morality when scrutinized. Republicans USUALLY either refuse to debate altogether or they argue in bad faith so they can "win / stalemate" debates, even though the entire reason the Dems wanted to debate in the first place was to have a good faith discussion and show conservatives that the Dem position is more logical and/or more moral.

One MIGHT deduce from this that the Republicans don't really have superior ideas these days, otherwise they would be more willing (and maybe even eager) to debate in good faith and show the Dems why their left wing ideas make less sense than GOP ideas.

Nonsense.  Liberals and conservatives disagree on some very fundamental things.  It is not in "bad faith" to reject how your opponent frames an issue; instead, it is (when done well) the highest and most essential from of debate. 

The GOP position "doesn't hold up to logic/morality" [to you] because you've probably accepted as an a priori truth a value system that assumes secular humanism, scientism, moral relativism, etc.  Conservatives haven't.  That doesn't make either side wrong, but it doesn't suggest there are multiple perspectives on any single question.

This truth has been a casualty of social media/opinion journalism's obsession with "fact checking" everything in the Trump era.  The idea that inherently debatable (or even scientific) questions can be given a binary "true" or "false" rating feeds the divisiveness of our era. 

An underrated difference is "the scientific establishment can be counted on to provide our best guess about a question of fact" versus "the scientific establishment is totally dependent on grant money and will make up anything their donors want them to hear". The left almost always emphasizes the former view and the right the latter one.

(A cynical me of like 6-8 years ago accepted both of these things as true, though it very distinctly seems like the situation has gotten much worse and trust in the scientific establishment has broadly collapsed through society as a consequence.)

[T'Chenka]

Nonsense.  Liberals and conservatives disagree on some very fundamental things.  It is not in "bad faith" to reject how your opponent frames an issue; instead, it is (when done well) the highest and most essential from of debate.  

"Arguing in bad faith" meaning using strawmen, denying the facts, interpreting the facts in an illogical but politically conventient way, ignoring context when it's convenient, not debating with somebody in an honest way where both sides could potentially learn something and MAYBE alter their views, not abandon a good faith argument or switch to bad faith when they start losing the argument, or abandon a debate altogether where the other person is arguing in good faith when they can no longer provide a good faith rebuttal.

Several well known blue avatars that I won't name do several of these all the time. Red avatars typically abandon debates when the other side refuses to acknowledge facts or context. Not the same thing.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'll make another comment, and say that this thread certainly does demonstrate why nothing will change with regards to the current situation on this forum. Blue and red avatars have fundamentally different views of what this forum is and what it should be. It is unlikely that they will find any sort of common ground on this. Red avatars do not believe that this forum is inherently exclusive of opposing political viewpoints and believe that blue avatars are simply incapable of debating properly or defending their beliefs. Blue avatars think it is a waste of time to contribute in a space which, they feel, is hostile to them.

This sounds like a microcosm of American politics.

Democrats tell Republicans that GOP modern policies are illogical and/or immoral, and try to debate with Republicans in order to show that the GOP position doesn't hold up to logic and/or morality when scrutinized. Republicans USUALLY either refuse to debate altogether or they argue in bad faith so they can "win / stalemate" debates, even though the entire reason the Dems wanted to debate in the first place was to have a good faith discussion and show conservatives that the Dem position is more logical and/or more moral.

One MIGHT deduce from this that the Republicans don't really have superior ideas these days, otherwise they would be more willing (and maybe even eager) to debate in good faith and show the Dems why their left wing ideas make less sense than GOP ideas.

Nonsense.  Liberals and conservatives disagree on some very fundamental things.  It is not in "bad faith" to reject how your opponent frames an issue; instead, it is (when done well) the highest and most essential from of debate. 

The GOP position "doesn't hold up to logic/morality" [to you] because you've probably accepted as an a priori truth a value system that assumes secular humanism, scientism, moral relativism, etc.  Conservatives haven't.  That doesn't make either side wrong, but it doesn't suggest there are multiple perspectives on any single question.

This truth has been a casualty of social media/opinion journalism's obsession with "fact checking" everything in the Trump era.  The idea that inherently debatable (or even scientific) questions can be given a binary "true" or "false" rating feeds the divisiveness of our era. 

An underrated difference is "the scientific establishment can be counted on to provide our best guess about a question of fact" versus "the scientific establishment is totally dependent on grant money and will make up anything their donors want them to hear". The left almost always emphasizes the former view and the right the latter one.

(A cynical me of like 6-8 years ago accepted both of these things as true, though it very distinctly seems like the situation has gotten much worse and trust in the scientific establishment has broadly collapsed through society as a consequence.)

Also it is harder to trust the scientific establishment after what they did during COVID. They acted like the lab leak theory was completely inaccurate in 2020 and then later on it was uncovered a reason they said that is they did not want to be seen as going along side Trump's "Xenophobic Agenda".  So yah this was a clear example of putting politics over science

Also after the spent months shaming everyone who went outside for a walk or those who wanted to eat outdoors, they started justifying going out and taking part in the BLM Protests with one even saying on MSNBC the danger from our current police system could be more dangerous for many people than COVID. This was of course another example of them putting politics over science during COVID.

 

[jamestroll]

You are obviously aware that I been very critical of the direction Republicans have gone in, particularly with regards to Trump. I am not a Trumpist, far from it, and I've generally been accused in the past of taking a "#both sides" approach to politics. I think it is inherently unfair to accuse all Democrats, or all Republicans, of possessing the exact same viewpoints on every issue, and that is done too frequently here. It is also inherently unfair to assert that one political party is morally correct on every issue.

Let us assume that we were in an alternate timeline, in which Trump had never become President and the Republican Party resembled that of the Bush Era. I have no doubt that there would still be harsh criticism of it and its adherents on this forum, and you would still have assertions that only one train of thought is sustainable or defensible. What you're saying here is that this forum should be a space for only one train of thought. I don't believe that Leip - who founded Atlas more than twenty years ago - would have intended for this to be an echo chamber.

On the contrary, I would like to see a forum with a bunch of Bush-era Republicans. Obviously there would be harsh criticisms, which is inevitable, and you would still see people like myself holding the viewpoints that Bushism isn't defensible, but we would not be as vocal and passionate about it, as Bushism isn't at war with democracy and reality as much as Trumpism is.

Generally, I am more of a Trump person than a Bush person.. by a long shot.

Bush-Cheney-Condi et al were war criminals and should be in PRISON  not in lavish retirement.

Their criminal international war  acts is arguably worse than January 6th.

But any support of Trump I had went down the drain with his comments and actions after the 2020 election.

[jamestroll]

Trump's performance on Covid has been highly underrated. He did an excellent job.

Like he was literally completely right here!

[Del Tachi]

I'll make another comment, and say that this thread certainly does demonstrate why nothing will change with regards to the current situation on this forum. Blue and red avatars have fundamentally different views of what this forum is and what it should be. It is unlikely that they will find any sort of common ground on this. Red avatars do not believe that this forum is inherently exclusive of opposing political viewpoints and believe that blue avatars are simply incapable of debating properly or defending their beliefs. Blue avatars think it is a waste of time to contribute in a space which, they feel, is hostile to them.

This sounds like a microcosm of American politics.

Democrats tell Republicans that GOP modern policies are illogical and/or immoral, and try to debate with Republicans in order to show that the GOP position doesn't hold up to logic and/or morality when scrutinized. Republicans USUALLY either refuse to debate altogether or they argue in bad faith so they can "win / stalemate" debates, even though the entire reason the Dems wanted to debate in the first place was to have a good faith discussion and show conservatives that the Dem position is more logical and/or more moral.

One MIGHT deduce from this that the Republicans don't really have superior ideas these days, otherwise they would be more willing (and maybe even eager) to debate in good faith and show the Dems why their left wing ideas make less sense than GOP ideas.

Nonsense.  Liberals and conservatives disagree on some very fundamental things.  It is not in "bad faith" to reject how your opponent frames an issue; instead, it is (when done well) the highest and most essential from of debate. 

The GOP position "doesn't hold up to logic/morality" [to you] because you've probably accepted as an a priori truth a value system that assumes secular humanism, scientism, moral relativism, etc.  Conservatives haven't.  That doesn't make either side wrong, but it doesn't suggest there are multiple perspectives on any single question.

This truth has been a casualty of social media/opinion journalism's obsession with "fact checking" everything in the Trump era.  The idea that inherently debatable (or even scientific) questions can be given a binary "true" or "false" rating feeds the divisiveness of our era. 

An underrated difference is "the scientific establishment can be counted on to provide our best guess about a question of fact" versus "the scientific establishment is totally dependent on grant money and will make up anything their donors want them to hear". The left almost always emphasizes the former view and the right the latter one.

I think even this is too cynical a take.  Both outlooks treat science like a monolith.  Any attempt to characterize the "scientific consensus" as one thing or another ignores that scientists spend a lot of time arguing and disagreeing about some fairly fundamental things.

[Ferguson97]

We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

Ding dong your opinion is wrong. You have the right to stay in your house forever if you are afraid of getting the cold. You do not have the right to force me to live according to your irrational fear.

Do you genuinely believe that there should never have been any covid restrictions at all, even in March-April 2020? Post-vaccine, I agree there shouldn't be restrictions, but T'Chenka is specifically referring to a point before we had the vaccine, and fear of covid was not irrational then.

[Aurelius]

We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

Ding dong your opinion is wrong. You have the right to stay in your house forever if you are afraid of getting the cold. You do not have the right to force me to live according to your irrational fear.

Do you genuinely believe that there should never have been any covid restrictions at all, even in March-April 2020?

He said 2020 and 2021. There should have been absolutely no restrictions of any kind after the vaccine became available.

Lockdowns were always a horrible idea. Pre-vaccine there should have been nothing more than mask requirements during the peaks of waves. I have no problem with the March 2020 lockdowns because we had no idea what the hell was going on. But the ones continuing after that were bad and wrong, and especially the ones in winter 2020-21 (which happened in a few states including CA) were indefensible. Trump was right to go after the Dem governors of those midwestern states in May and June 2020.

[Ferguson97]

We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

Ding dong your opinion is wrong. You have the right to stay in your house forever if you are afraid of getting the cold. You do not have the right to force me to live according to your irrational fear.

Do you genuinely believe that there should never have been any covid restrictions at all, even in March-April 2020?

He said 2020 and 2021. There should have been absolutely no restrictions of any kind after the vaccine became available.

Lockdowns were always a horrible idea. Pre-vaccine there should have been nothing more than mask requirements during the peaks of waves. I have no problem with the March 2020 lockdowns because we had no idea what the hell was going on. But the ones continuing after that were bad and wrong, and especially the ones in winter 2020-21 (which happened in a few states including CA) were indefensible. Trump was right to go after the Dem governors of those midwestern states in May and June 2020.

I agree there should have not been any restrictions after the vaccine became available, but you seem to contradict that in your second paragraph.

There was no vaccine in May and June 2020 or even winter 2020-2021. It wasn't widely available until like March 2021.

[T'Chenka]

Lockdowns were always a horrible idea. Pre-vaccine there should have been nothing more than mask requirements during the peaks of waves. I have no problem with the March 2020 lockdowns because we had no idea what the hell was going on. But the ones continuing after that were bad and wrong, and especially the ones in winter 2020-21 (which happened in a few states including CA) were indefensible. Trump was right to go after the Dem governors of those midwestern states in May and June 2020.

The vast majority of research and data indicates that if we used a time machine and did what you're proposing, a lot more people would have died or developed long-term heart or lung illnesses. When I say "a lot", I mean hundreds of thousands and possibly over a million.

What was so extremely important that made saving all of those lives "a horrible idea"? The concept of anti-collectivist libertarianism? I'm sure that would have comforted all the people who lost family members and comforted the people who died as they lay there dying.