Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

An alternate home for the community from the legacy Fourth Turning Forum
User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:47 am
** 18-Jan-2021 World View: Advocating criminal activity

No members of this forum advocate criminal activity. That's an extremely offensive accusation, and it is what Democrats have been
doing for the last year with antifa-blm fascist violence.
And yet, members of this site regularly complain about the crackdown on criminal activity. What are they complaining about? Has there been an attempt by either the government or phBB to censor red thought? There is much more censorship by the red here. It is the ability to present blue thought that is subject to censorship by you. If everybody is to complain about censorship and agree it is a bad thing, why practice it?

Also, the Boogaloo Boys, the Proud Boys, the bad cops, the looters, and the Wolverine Watchman are the ones doing criminal activity, not anyone affiliated with the Democrats. Why do you persist in your lie?

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by John »

** 18-Jan-2021 World View: Criminal activity
Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:59 pm
> And yet, members of this site regularly complain about the
> crackdown on criminal activity.
Please give explicit examples, with links.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:53 pm
These are not emotional outbursts. Butler really does believe all the offensive things he says about the other members of this forum.

Butler holds to the Far Leftist Thinking with Democratic Party policies: crackdown on civil liberties, censorship, strict government control of the economy, imposition of strict racial and gender controls, rigging the election, impeachment hoaxes, white self-hatred, black fatherlessness, state control of black mothers, welfare preferred over employment, silence all dissent, support for antifa-blm fascist violence, bailing antifa-blm violent criminals out of jail, cancel the First Amendment, and so forth.

These are not emotional outbursts. These are things he really believes, along with other Democrats.

And he claims that the reason that the other members of this forum don't agree with the same policies is because of Tribal Thinking. That may be extremely offensive, but it's what he actually believes.
Agreed these are not emotional outbursts. That's about all I agree with. Pardon if the following paragraph is worded as statements of fact rather than my opinion which is subject to debate, but if this is to be short and clear it can not be weasel worded.

I am against censorship, but this is mostly practiced by John. The crackdown is on criminal activity which is not a civil liberty. Both parties have advocated control of the economy since the Great Depression. I just don't think much of the predictable Voodoo collapses. Control of who gets the best and most powerful jobs has long been to give them all to white males. The blues are just trying to end that control. There is no evidence of a rigged election. The 'perfect' phone call and Trump's pre capitol riot speech are not hoaxes. They happened. The ghetto mindset is a problem that should be addressed seriously rather than used to exaggerate xenophobia. The violence over the summer was not by any organization affiliated with the Democrats. There is not apt to be Catholicism declared the official religion of the US, the enforcement of one religion's doctrine by the government, or limits to speech in the upcoming administration, though there may be a greater emphasis on fact checking. Fact checkers have free speech too. There are more than one reason people on this side disagree. It is not all tribal thinking.

John has persistently misrepresented my position. Bluntly, he lies. He cannot refute my real position, so he asserts a false one. Repeatedly. This is what I have called an iIdeological bias, a refusal to deal with people's real motivation, a substitution of a false perspective that he will repeat and repeat no matter how often it is refuted. This use of false motivation is why everything he presents should be taken with a grain of salt. He habitually presents false motivations which render everything he presents questionable.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by John »

** 18-Jan-2021 World View: Why are you here?
Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:38 pm
> I am against censorship, but this is mostly practiced by John. The
> crackdown is on criminal activity which is not a civil liberty.
No, I haven't censored anything of yours. Hijacking other people's
threads with offensive garbage is not a civil liberty, and cracking
down on it is not censorship. Every offensive piece of garbage you've
posted is still online, unedited. That's not censorship. So that's
your lie #1.

You say you're against censorship, but then in the next sentence you
say that censorship is fine when it's about "criminal activity," which
is the excuse that all violent dictators use. The First Amendment
says nothing about "criminal activity." So that's your lie #2.

You say that members of this forum "regularly complain about the
crackdown on criminal activity." I asked you for specific examples,
with links, but you can't. That's your lie #3.

Furthermore, shutting down Donald Trump's twitter feed is clearly
censorship having nothing to do with so-called criminal activity. So
that's your lie #4.

Ironically, you're right about one thing. The Democrats, the
mainstream media, and social media all colluded to institute a massive
censorship effort to censor Hunter Biden's criminal activity. But of
course, that's the opposite of what you mean. That wasn't censorship
of criminal activity. That was censoring reports of Hunter Biden's
criminal activity.

> There is no evidence of a rigged election.

No, there is plenty of evidence of a rigged election. Talk to Warren
Dew in the other forum. That's your lie #5.

> The violence over the summer was not by any organization
> affiliated with the Democrats.

No, I said the antifa-blm fascist violence was SUPPORTED BY the
Democrats -- and by you -- in the name of "social justice." That's
supporting the antifa-blm violence, whether antifa-blm is an
organization affiliated with the Democrats or not. That's your lie
#6.

> John has persistently misrepresented my position.

No, I've represented your position as FAR LEFTIST THINKING, in
contrast to what you call "tribal thinking." And then I stated the
FAR LEFTIST THINKING policies. You haven't repudiated any of those
policies. The ones you mention at all you don't repudiate, but give
Baghdad Bob excuses for. Even if there are one or two of those
policies that you disagree with, you certainly agree with FAR LEFTIST
THINKING as a whole, so I didn't misrepresent your position. That's
your lie #6.

How many lies can you pack into a single post?

Those are truly evil policies, and the Democrats support them and you
support them. That makes the Democrats evil people, for supporting
evil policies. Just like Xi Jinping and the CCP are evil people, for
supporting the arrest, torture and enslavement of millions of Uighurs.
Democrats like Eric Swalwell, Dianne Feinstein, Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden are all totally compromised by the Chinese and Chinese money and
Chinese honeypots, so the Chinese Communist evil extends to the
Democrats.

But that's not the main problem. If you could rationally and lucidly
and inoffensively defend FAR LEFTIST POLICIES, that would be one
thing. But you don't do that. You're incapable of defending those
evil policies because they're evil. Instead, you attack and offend
members of this forum with the moronic accusation of "weird tribal
thinking" because they don't agree with your FAR LEFTIST POLICIES.
It's your behavior that's the problem -- your extremely offensive
behavior.

I've asked you several times -- why are you here? You're not going to
change any minds. So what are you trying to accomplish?

Answer the question:

Why are you here?
Why are you here?
Why are you here?
Why are you here?
Why are you here?
Why are you here?

Guest

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Guest »

Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:38 pm
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:53 pm
These are not emotional outbursts. Butler really does believe all the offensive things he says about the other members of this forum.

Butler holds to the Far Leftist Thinking with Democratic Party policies: crackdown on civil liberties, censorship, strict government control of the economy, imposition of strict racial and gender controls, rigging the election, impeachment hoaxes, white self-hatred, black fatherlessness, state control of black mothers, welfare preferred over employment, silence all dissent, support for antifa-blm fascist violence, bailing antifa-blm violent criminals out of jail, cancel the First Amendment, and so forth.

These are not emotional outbursts. These are things he really believes, along with other Democrats.

And he claims that the reason that the other members of this forum don't agree with the same policies is because of Tribal Thinking. That may be extremely offensive, but it's what he actually believes.
Agreed these are not emotional outbursts. That's about all I agree with. Pardon if the following paragraph is worded as statements of fact rather than my opinion which is subject to debate, but if this is to be short and clear it can not be weasel worded.

I am against censorship, but this is mostly practiced by John. The crackdown is on criminal activity which is not a civil liberty. Both parties have advocated control of the economy since the Great Depression. I just don't think much of the predictable Voodoo collapses. Control of who gets the best and most powerful jobs has long been to give them all to white males. The blues are just trying to end that control. There is no evidence of a rigged election. The 'perfect' phone call and Trump's pre capitol riot speech are not hoaxes. They happened. The ghetto mindset is a problem that should be addressed seriously rather than used to exaggerate xenophobia. The violence over the summer was not by any organization affiliated with the Democrats. There is not apt to be Catholicism declared the official religion of the US, the enforcement of one religion's doctrine by the government, or limits to speech in the upcoming administration, though there may be a greater emphasis on fact checking. Fact checkers have free speech too. There are more than one reason people on this side disagree. It is not all tribal thinking.

John has persistently misrepresented my position. Bluntly, he lies. He cannot refute my real position, so he asserts a false one. Repeatedly. This is what I have called an iIdeological bias, a refusal to deal with people's real motivation, a substitution of a false perspective that he will repeat and repeat no matter how often it is refuted. This use of false motivation is why everything he presents should be taken with a grain of salt. He habitually presents false motivations which render everything he presents questionable.
Another great sermon.

This is a short video of Democrats or their supporters inciting violence:

https://rumble.com/vczmwt-double-standa ... erals.html

Nothing happened to any of these people.

But that doesn't matter. It is just an inconvenient fact which will be ignored.

Only conservatives post bad things on the internet. Only conservatives are ignorant of the truth and how dare they question 'established facts'. And only conservatives need to be banned by social media. Put them in the gulag now!

There is so much material on the Big Tech platforms which contravenes their own policies and has not been removed. This includes shocking material from unsavoury regimes and left wing activists, and even left wing politicians. Yet social media accounts belonging to conservatives who have not posted anything illegal are censored or deleted.

Nobody on this website has condoned the appalling scenes at the Capitol. They have simply objected to the double standards and hypocrisy from the political left.

Observer

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Observer »

John, please. It was seven lies. Not six.
You've started a tally, keep it up. I agree with you on all seven. Bob really is outmatched. And he doesn't realize it. He seems to think the weight of groupthink gives him a measure of authority. Sad....

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 1:03 pm
** 18-Jan-2021 World View: Criminal activity
Bob Butler wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 12:59 pm
And yet, members of this site regularly complain about the crackdown on criminal activity.
Please give explicit examples, with links.
I just needed a bit of time off. I figure one entry will do.
John wrote:Butler holds to the Far Leftist Thinking with Democratic Party policies: crackdown on civil liberties, censorship,
viewtopic.php?p=57255#p57255

The crackdown is on use of social media to plan criminal activity. Planning criminal activity is not a civil right. The policy came from the tech companies, not the Democrats. It could reasonably be part of a term of use doctrine, though I have not researched if it actually is. The senate is out of session, the White House in Republican hands for the moment, so how could this supposed Democratic policy be put in place?

I would prefer if you debated me rather that the supposed far left thinking. In a big tent, there is a wide variety of opinions. If the people of this site are not supportive of the capitol riots, you can find people on the blue side who hold ideas that I strongly disagree with. But you fail to address me, but rather debate against some faux set of ideas which deserve to be debated against.

I have for a long time stated that facts which are not consistent with a worldview tend to be ignored. Haidt's The Righteous Mind with its intuitive elephant with a rational rider metaphor supports this observation. If you are incapable of debating me, you focus on what you can counter.

Why am I here? I answered that question already. You just were not happy with the answer and ignored it. For all your claim of intelligence, you censor your own thoughts. If you were presented with a fact that supported your worldview, you would latch onto it, value it highly. If a fact does not mesh, it gets pushed aside. That is not just your trait, but common to a lot of humans. How can it not be? Very few change their worldviews. To protect their worldviews, they gloss over facts to defend their worldviews. You are just a bit more blatant about it than most.
Last edited by Bob Butler on Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
No, I haven't censored anything of yours. Hijacking other people's threads with offensive garbage is not a civil liberty, and cracking down on it is not censorship. Every offensive piece of garbage you've posted is still online, unedited. That's not censorship. So that's your lie #1.
Moving or deleting a post that responds factually to a point made in a thread would be censorship. If a new exchange had developed that properly deserves a thread of it's own would be one thing, but you censor the response to ideas after a single post. Every post that you personally disagree with is not garbage.
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
You say you're against censorship, but then in the next sentence you say that censorship is fine when it's about "criminal activity," which is the excuse that all violent dictators use. The First Amendment says nothing about "criminal activity." So that's your lie #2.
Hmm. Last time I raised this issue, you got all emotional and irrational. Still, I see the above as being a defense of criminal activity? Are you sure you don't want to rewrite it?
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
You say that members of this forum "regularly complain about the crackdown on criminal activity." I asked you for specific examples, with links, but you can't. That's your lie #3.
See above. viewtopic.php?p=57274#p57274
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
Furthermore, shutting down Donald Trump's twitter feed is clearly censorship having nothing to do with so-called criminal activity. So that's your lie #4.
He was encouraging criminal activity. Inciting insurrection.
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
Ironically, you're right about one thing. The Democrats, the mainstream media, and social media all colluded to institute a massive censorship effort to censor Hunter Biden's criminal activity. But of course, that's the opposite of what you mean. That wasn't censorship of criminal activity. That was censoring reports of Hunter Biden's criminal activity.
Feel free to investigate Hunter's activity all you like. Perhaps there ought to be well written laws against nepotism. Thing is, after Trump brought a lot of his kin into his administration, no one has been in a hurry to write the laws. Can you hit Hunter without bending over backwards to protect Ivanka? If I cared to, I know it would be awkward to do the reverse.
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
No, there is plenty of evidence of a rigged election. Talk to Warren Dew in the other forum. That's your lie #5.
There is no evidence of systematic fraud. Biden had every reason to run clean. Trump's lawyers have not presented the idea that such might exist to a judge as lying to a judge could get them disbarred. The red media repudiated its reporting as soon as a defamation lawsuit was hinted. Mostly, for the life of me, I can't think of a reason Trump would have sat on the evidence if it really existed.
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
No, I said the antifa-blm fascist violence was SUPPORTED BY the
Democrats -- and by you -- in the name of "social justice." That's supporting the antifa-blm violence, whether antifa-blm is an organization affiliated with the Democrats or not. That's your lie #6.
The Democrats do not support the Boogaloo Bois, looters, bad cops, secret police, Proud Boys and the few activist militias.
John wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:19 pm
No, I've represented your position as FAR LEFTIST THINKING, in contrast to what you call "tribal thinking." And then I stated the FAR LEFTIST THINKING policies. You haven't repudiated any of those policies. The ones you mention at all you don't repudiate, but give Baghdad Bob excuses for. Even if there are one or two of those policies that you disagree with, you certainly agree with FAR LEFTIST THINKING as a whole, so I didn't misrepresent your position. That's your lie #6.
Again, I do not agree with every policy anyone progressive has ever proposed. I wish you would debate me in addition to debating some policies that deserve to be debated against. I read this lack of debate as an inability to respond. If you didn't claim that those wild theories were mine, we could agree on some things.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

Today I have been thinking on an old joke with a point on it.
Will Rodgers wrote:I do not belong to an organized political party. I am a Democrat.
That was a while ago, but still true enough today. Any big tent party will contain some differences of opinion. At least, I will not support every progressive opinion.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

I have long used turning theory to predict a collapse of conservative values come the crisis. People generally do not update worldviews. A perspective must totally fail someone before he will change his perspective. In the Industrial Age, this involved brutal losses in a crisis war. Events that occurred in Atlanta in the US Civil War or Hiroshima in World War II might stand as examples.

Look at the current crisis. The deaths from COVID, the economic ruin resulting, the heavy protests of racism, the capitol riots, could all add up to such a value shifting event. A few weeks ago, they didn’t. The 20th? The anticipated insurrections did not occur. Trump had difficulties gathering a crowd at his going away event. The MAGA folks who had waved flags with such assurance on January 6th were missing. Trump was defeated, dejected, alone. The Democrats were left the field clear to set a new tone.

Had the national morning of the COVID victims the 19th changed the tone? Was it clearer that a new wave of anti racist regulations would happen? Was it clearer that you can’t recover the economy until you attacked the bug? Was the insurrection unsupportable by a lot of tired people? Were people growing tired of the collapse, ready to have the discipline necessary to get the bug over with? Had the events of late added up to the point where a lot of people at the same time were questioning their perspective?

That is what I mean by a collapse of conservative values. It is too soon to jump up and down and celebrate. We will have to see if this regeneracy holds.

Still, there is much that the rural, cavalier conservative culture has contributed to the US over the years. They can afford to let go of the tendencies that once carried them and whose time has run its course.

It seems to me likely that the Republicans will have a scramble between the MAGA people, the old elitist establishment, and the true conservatives. A few weeks ago, I would have given MAGA a big advantage. Now, I am not so sure.

But that is not my battle, though I am interested enough.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests