Fair enough, but do you really feel many people actually believe Obama is Jesus or God, or otherwise divine?  I just don't see this as a particularly large movement.  I've heard a lot more people say he's the antichrist than that he's a god.  I've never heard Obama claim any divine power or insight, either.  Whereas Palin told her church that the pipeline project was the "will of God."

I don't think anyone is actually going to kill anyone for any of the candidates, but I do think those at Palin's rallies are showing much more of a desire to do so, and that frightens me more than some kooks thinking Obama is the second coming.  If he starts saying he's the second coming, I'll be worried.

I've never met them, so I can't say anything with certainty.  I can say that there are a LOT of people around here who are way to heated up about this, and most of them go into his physical characteristics (how charismatic he is, how nice he is, how he's black, etc.) with no focus on what he stands for (well, except for "Hope".  I'll admit, the campaign platform of "Despair" did not work as well as I expected.)  This tells me there's a blind following on the lowest level, people following because of what they think he is, not because they know what he will do.

It could be there are pro-McCain folks like this too.  I haven't seen them.  The MSM doesn't seem to be following McCain with even close to the same intensity, and I've never had anyone come and tell me they're voting for McCain for any reason.  I'm not quite sure what the McCain pins look like.  (I have had one person say he'd vote for McCain because Obama is black.)  So I'm just not getting that vibe, not from the people on the bus, or the people on the news stations.  Obama meanwhile is set up like some sort of rock star (literally, touring with rock bands).



Everyone knows God is an oilman.



Jesus was considered the first coming well before he said anything, or before his words were published.

I'd have voted for Jesus, if didn't claim to be God. ;)

I can understand of being frightened by fanatics.  But being frightened of a candidate because of his fanatics, when the candidate doesn't claim any of the things about himself that they claim for him, seems off to me.  Though, if it works, maybe I should start makin' those Palin-with-the-baby-jesus posters you were mentioning... ;)

Ms. Vexen, actually. I am not married. But please, Vexen is fine.



I do think these is a good point, and we are seeing plenty of that this time around. However, I'm more inclined to believe the latter, simply because, even in times where things were much better, in the mid 2000s, or much of the 90s, for example, partisan hatred was still rather rampant.

However, I don't see why we can't get rid of it as acceptable behavior. Yes, some people still do get angry with people's race, ethnicity, religion, and gender, but it's not really considered acceptable to anymore. Such things, expressed too loudly, will be reprimanded, sometimes even punished. And those who hurt and threaten on those bases are often taken exception with the law. Yes, people do tend to get angry or fear those that aren't like them, but in the past, we had taken strides against this sort of behavior.

Shouldn't we with partisanship? I simply don't see the value of denegrading others on the basis of their political beliefs. Debate is one thing, but personal attacks and group character assassination are quite another. Even if I'm not entirely objective, as TitL seems to point out, that doesn't mean that I don't think that I shouldn't be repirmenanded for this any less than others.



Just to get this straight...are you insinuating that Obama is the Anti-Christ?



To be fair, these aren't exactly entirely religious behaviors. We've seen them before in other areas. People used to regularly faint at JFK rallies as well. And at Elvis, Beatles, and U2 concerts. Are you infering that they thought that Kennedy or McCartney were God or messiahs? Idols, certainly, but meessiahs? I'd say that would be a hard case.

I've seen the touching thing before as well with many celebrities. I remember personally seeing one involving a man and Angelina Jolie several years ago. I've heard it happened often with Michael Jackson, Michel Jordan, and Justin Timberlake as well. It's silly fandom, really.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure about where you'e from, but around here, I hear a lot more of the religious connections being made by the opponents to Obama than I do with the supporters. The only times I've heard him be called the Messiah and divine was in mock of him, not in sincerity.

These are much more common phenominon than just with religion.




Yes, there are a lot of people like this. I don't believe this is the majority of those that will vote for him, but it is a rather disturbing amount. To be fair, there are also a lot of people who will vote against him for superficial reasons as well (because he's a "muslim", a terrorist, unamerican, foreigner, a radical black revolutionary, or simply black; two of my own uncles seems to have problems with the latter). It's certainly not a very good example of how a democracy is a good thing.


I don't really see much support for your theory that positive emotions are more dangerous than negative ones in campaigns though. I'm rather with Tycho on that. It seems like most everything you say reguarding it seems to be able to be applied to the other side. A month ago, this killing stuff wasn't around. Palin was introduced, and people started to instantly love her, and get to know her. It didn't start with hatred, it's just not comming to that point, as she 'is' giving the fanatics something to hate. Without directly doing so, she's pretty much pointing at Obama at saying "fear him!" McCarthy did to that. The Inquisition did do that. Obama hasn't. But you fear that you will. In essense, you're seemingly holding against him things that he hasn't done, but could possibly do.

Beyond that, it hasn't proven to work with Obama in the past. Obama generally has to keep a fairly positive point. In the primaries, when he would try to get aggressive against Clinton, it would ususally backfire. And when he would say anything remotely extreme, the GOP jumps all over him. I don't think this is quite as uncontested as you seem to imply.

At any rate, I do think we're getting off task here. Are you saying we should discourage positive feelings about people as well as negative?
This message was last edited by the player at 21:39, Tue 14 Oct 2008.

No the Anti-Christ will have every one snow balled.

One thing that might be encouraging, is that the attacks by the McCain campaign seem to be backfiring, causing people to view him more negatively instead of viewing Obama negatively.  The reason campaigns engage in negative ads, is because they think they work.  If they don't work, then they'll stop using them.  To a degree, this seems to show that people (at least some of them), are indeed taking the position that this kind of hatred isn't appropriate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...politics/15poll.html

Oh, I agree, that sort of behavior is not acceptable, and it paints you poorly if you seem to support it.  It does have a value, but I think it is ethically questionable and ultimately dangerous.



Of course not!

Maybe

(teasing, teasing)



Did they?  Perhaps my historical memory is simply too short.  However, no one called JFK "JFChrist".

But I have seen people get irrational about rock stars.  Check out what punks did following Sex Pistols concerts.  Entire social movements have been started by rock stars.  Do we want a politician leading a full social movement?  That sounds dangerously like it's removing checks and balances, in fact, removing just about all of them.



Palin could be dangerous.  She could sputter out and die.  I don't know.  I initially expected Obama's popularity to crash, but he's stayed strong.  IF Palin continues to have that sort of support, and if she becomes more than your common V-P (who does just about nothing), I'll be worried.  Of course, all of this puts that after the election.  So for me, she's an unknown.



I'm not holding things against him he could do.  I'm holding things against him that may happen if he's elected.  It's like saying McCain is a dangerous choice because, given his age, he might die during his term.  That isn't McCain's fault, but it's a factor which has to be concerned.



No, I'm saying we should be wary of fanaticism in either direction on either side.  The more fanaticism, the more we should be wary of it.

*** 'Cos I distrust him less than Obama?


*** Um ... yes? I don't know about the rest of you guys (and girls), but I'd love it if we had a President who wanted to change things for the better. Lincoln led a social movement by legalising the equality of black people. FDR led one by overhauling the way the US Government worked. JFK is seen as leading the civil rights movement by some. What's wrong with the President ("Leader of the Free World") leading a social movement, so long as it's a good one? (And yes, I know there is debate about whether FDR's was good or bad.)
This message was last edited by the player at 15:27, Wed 15 Oct 2008.

Liberation of black people was a political ploy to win a war.  Why else did the Emancipation Proclamation come until the war was nearly half over?

And don't even get me started on the damage FDR caused.  He didn't get us out of the depression, WWII did.  He just started a program which will swell to 40% of our debt in twenty years, seized American's property illegally, and violated the Constitution in half a dozen other ways.

Was JFK good or bad?  Hard to tell, he didn't even live out a full term.  But one out of three is not a great track record.

Socialism is the government coming in and taking what you worked hard for once you get to a certain level.

I heard on Rush today of a man that is buying out a partner of his so that he can run the business, build it up, and hire more people.  Obama's plan of increasing taxes on those the make 250,000 per year would hurt him hiring new people.  Obama's plan to give 3,000 for hiring a full time worker, by his admition, is a slap in the face.  He said that a 40,000 per year employee actually cost him 54,000 because of mandated insurance and benefits.  So 3K does nothing to off set his cost.

I've said it once, Beck as said it everyday, "I have never gotten a job from a poor person, only from a rice person."

Socialism is the government coming in and taking what you worked hard for once you get to a certain level.

Socialism is the government protecting the citizens of the country. Taxes are the rent you pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society.

Yes, but when it comes to rent I can choose wether to pay or not.  The government doesn't give me that option.

And when do I need the government to protect me? <sound of rifle cocking> I's gots all da protection I's needs. :)

es, but when it comes to rent I can choose wether to pay or not.

Really? Your landlord let's you stay in your apartment without paying rent? I'll have to try that next time my lease renewal comes around.

And when do I need the government to protect me?

The simple fact that we live in a civilized states protects you on many levels. Things aren't nearly so pleasant in a natural state.

I do believe we've sorta gotten off task. This isn't a thread about socialism and expanding government. This is about respecting those we have a disagreement with, by not treating them as stupid, immoral, or somehow deficient.

Tycho, yes, this is a good sign, but it's only a reaction to extreme. This has been going on for much longer. It's no real surprise that, historically speaking, talking bad about candidates on a personal level works. Yes, when it gets out of hand, it tends to backfire, which it seems to be in this case. But to say this is our general reaction to this sort of thing I simply cannot agree with. People like Jessie Jackson, Al Franken, Rush Limbagh, and Ann Coulter aren't just new phenominon, but they've been around a long time, spewing out complete and utter disrespect for people who disagree with them or follow a different ideology, and these people have many millions of faithful listeners, watchers, and followers who enjoy their rhetoric.

Here's an interesting excersize. Seeing as this seems to give the highest level of interaction at the moment in this thread, and it's bordering on the personal, how about I suggest a different course of action. Gammaknight, say 5 good things about librals. Five things you think they do well in their intentions, in their philosophy, in things that librals have contributed to society, in historical movement, etc. Say five positive things in that regard, about the other side.

Falkus, how about you do the same with conservatives?

That's actually a good idea, Vexen!

here's my five:
1.  they do honestly want what they think is best for the country
2.  some of them are fiscal conservatives, and that's a good idea
3.  for the most part, they do like the rules to be followed
4.  usually they're nice people in one-on-one situations, when you're not talking politics
5.  it's always good to have people who disagree with me around, just to keep me in check ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

A very nice TED talk on morality and the differences between conservatives and liberals.  It's a topic we've touched on here before, with the studies into the "5 pillars" of morality, and how liberals and conservatives differ on them (spoiler alert: liberals care mostly about fairness and care/harm, conservatives are more evenly balanced among the five pillars; loyalty, purity, and authority being the other three).  I liked the talk because he encourage us to use the information to avoid the tribalism and self-righteousness that is natural to humans, which is something I think is really important for us all to do (even though it's really hard, and I certainly can't claim to be great at doing it).  The video is about 20 minutes, so it'll take a chunk of time out of your day, but if you got a free half hour, I'd recommend it.

Was pointed to this blog entry today, and found it very good.  It discusses what the author calls "the distress of the privileged," and the way some christians and other conservatives feel under attack or threatened by the gay-rights movement or other sources of change.  Something we've heard here on this discussion forum many, many times is lines like "you're asking for tolerance, but you don't tolerate my religious views that say homosexuality is wrong, so it's YOU who's really the intolerant one!"  The blog talks about the problem with this being the difference in scale;  it's not that the Christians feelings aren't legitimate, or that they're not deserving empathy, it's just that they're not equivalent to the suffering that their position imposes on others.

The author puts it much better than I've been able to do here, so I should probably just quote some:


Another quote that I particularly like was addressing the idea that many christians feel like an embattled minority, and that they've got it much harder than gays and other minorities.




Anyway, give it a read if you've got a few seconds.  It's more even-handed than I'm usually able to be, and I'm not sure I've done it justice with my description here.  Let me know what you think.

I find that blog post more balanced than your quotes from it. I'm glad I went back to the source. He does go overboard with a couple of false equivalences ("Christians may feel bashed by criticism, but gays get literally bashed by hate crimes"), and straw men ("the rich feel “punished” by taxes; whites believe they are the real victims of racism; employers’ religious freedom is threatened when they can’t deny contraception to their employees; English-speakers resent bilingualism"), but overall his position is reasonable.

On the specific issue, I personally feel that both sides are right. Gays deserve equal rights. Those who believe homosexual acts are immoral also have the right to believe so and say so; what they shouldn't have is the ability to legislate based on those beliefs.

Out of curiosity, why do you call these straw man arguments?  I've seen all of those views expressed by people before, and most of them here on this forum.  Quite a few people really do seem to hold all those positions, as far as I can tell.


I can certainly agree with that.

Good find.

I do agree the author makes a strong point. One line that especially resonated with me was 'George deserves compassion, [but] Betty deserves justice'; this recognition that both parties have needs, and these needs aren't the same. It's easy to assume that both groups are asking for the same thing, and to a large degree, they aren't. And so any attempt to meet the demands of both sides are already doomed to failure.

And I'll also agree that a large part of the problem is one side changing (and accusing) with the other side being shocked and surprised at the change. To a degree, I think the warning about impending change is extremely helpful. It's just like everything else. I finished a review of a large document and sent it to QA, but I forgot to cc: my boss. My boss got upset, not because I did a bad job, but because things are happening and he's hearing about it after the fact. No one likes to be surprised like that.

I'll also say that there are a lot of aspects that just make it uncomfortable (or dangerous) for priviledged or outside people to even recognize the transition. In some cases I am afraid to even engage in the discussion for someone deciding I'm a bigot or a wierdo or whatever. There's such a list of hot words (enforced by people both in and outside of that culture), that the best thing for me to do is to be quiet and ignore it. This isn't saying I don't care, but that the environment creates an unnecessary risk that makes it beneficial to me to pretend it just doesn't exist. The LGBT community seems, generally, to be pretty good at providing a unified public face, but this isn't the case among the black community, which seems a lot more fractured.

The first may not be much of a straw man. The rich feel "thieved" by taxes, but they manage to dodge a lot of the taxes people throw at them anyway. I don't know any genuinely rich people I can query about this.

Some whites people believe they are also victims of racism, but I have yet to meet a white person who thinks whites suffer more racism than blacks.

Recent arguments about contraception weren't about prohibiting employees from getting and using contraception. They were about employers paying for it.

Some English-speakers resent those in the USA who can't speak English. Bilingual people, though, are an asset, not a problem.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:32, Thu 13 Sept 2012.

Might be a difference of who we've heard talk then.  I've heard people express this sentiment before, usually in regards to affirmative action and the like.  During that trial a couple years back about the white fire-fighter who considered it unfair that the department decided to redo the employment test when no (almost no?) black people passed it, there were quite a few people saying things like "the REAL victim of racism is the white male in this country!"  I've heard many people express the view that being a minority in the US makes your life easier, rather than harder, etc.  Again, though, may just be a sampling issue.


For some people, but many of them were still unhappy with it when the employers weren't required to pay for it.  It wasn't about the money, it was about not being able to send the message "I disapprove of you using this."  The compromise that was reached was that employees don't have to offer it, but the insurance companies will allow employees to add it to their plan for free.  But many people are still upset about this, and feel it violates the employer's religious rights because they have to offer a plan that the employee can extend to include contraception.


This might be a different interpretation of what the author meant by bilingualism, I think.  I think what he meant was the idea that some people speak languages other than english, and that's okay, as opposed to the "English only" view, that thinks all government forms should only be in English, etc.  So he's less talking about an opposition to bilingual people, so much as opposition to the acceptance of languages other than english being spoken in the US.  I've heard things like "why on earth should I have to push 1 for english?!  This is america!" plenty of times, which I think was what the author was talking about.

Actually just went back to the blog post, and realized that he gave links for each of the examples you listed.  The one for bilingualism was actually more about people upset by the view that speaking two languages would be a good thing.  The author of the post he linked to considered it unfair that some jobs were being advertised that required the ability to speak spanish.  As the article he links to says:


The link for whites feeling they're the victims of racism talked about a study that survey ~200 white people and ~200 black people and found that as a group, the white people thought that whites suffered more racism today than black people do. Says the link:

When using the term 'bias' instead of 'racism', it could (and, well, did) elicit such responses. It's considered okay to be openly biased against whites, but not okay to be openly biased against blacks (not that that stops some people from being non-openly biased against blacks). I'd still have to ask "Really?" of any white person who labeled anti-white bias a 10; I just don't know what those people are thinking.

Doesn't sound racist, but it does sort of sound like what the author of the blog was talking about.  You expect not to have to speak spanish, and when a job that in the past wouldn't require it starts to demand it, it feels uncomfortable/wrong/maddening/whatever.  You expect your co-workers to have to learn your language, not the other way around, because that's how it's largely always been for you.  It does suck for you that's changed, and we shouldn't tell you otherwise.  But it's only by luck that you've been in that fortunate position up until now, so we shouldn't resist changing that just because it makes your life less convenient.  If I've got a team of 9 guys who're already working for me, and who primarily speak spanish, it doesn't make sense for me to fire them all (or force them all to take language classes, or whatever) and hire 9 english speakers just so I can give you the job instead of some other person who can speak spanish.  The feeling that "hey, I speak English, I shouldn't need to learn spanish to get a job in the country" is a good example of the kind of loss of privilege that the blog-author was talking about.


Yeah, I think "Really?" about things people say quite a lot these days.  But they really are thinking them, as far as I can tell.