White Privilege ?

[BruceVC]

 

You're a top-notch troll when you want to be one, Bruce. Other times, like now, not so much.

 Thats the funny thing, I'm not trolling but I am teasing you a little and  showing you the inherent contradiction in your guys logic...but you need someone to point it out  

 

You don't agree with me because you have your own opinion and I expect you to be honest? So we end up debating...someone who doesn't know  us ends up thinking this " thread is polarized "  ...yet it just us debating. So the word polarized is very subjective 

[Bartimaeus]

Now I literally am not understanding you at all. What inherent contradiction did you point out? And how does our discussion here...one party a South African citizen, the other a U.S.-ian...say something - anything - about U.S. society at large that could ever possibly be considered more than anecdotal at best? I would also like to remind you that you're the one that contradicted my - the one that actually lives in the U.S. - perspective...and without posting anything more than anecdotal evidence (the same as myself, again, excepting that I actually live in the U.S....), while I pointed out that that mere words like we've both only supplied - without evidence, without any logical reasoning - would be unlikely to sway somebody of any persuasion. And your latest counterpoint is that you've somehow pointed out an "inherent contradiction" in my logic? What logic? All I did was bring up some anecdotal evidence and my own perspective, same as you did.

 

(e): JadedWolf's post after mine here reminded me of what this thread was originally about: Bruce complaining that he didn't like it when others dismissed his opinions and perspective out of hand because of his skin color...and now he's doing the same to me because he's been to the U.S. a few times and thinks he knows better. The irony is palpable.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[JadedWolf]

I've been trying not to butt into this discussion. People on this forum have, in the past, pointed out that I have strong opinions on things which are based entirely on second hand information about things I have no real relevant experience in. I've come to accept that, really, they are absolutely right. So, while absolutely admitting that I've never been to South Africa and that my opinions may not be worth much, I'd still like to say some things. First, let me just say that it seems very lame to me to discredit someone's opinion on the basis that you think think they can't see things straight because of their skin colour. But on the other hand, I can totally understand why some black people in South Africa might take that stance - understand, I mean, not saying that they are right to think that way. From what I can tell, the social gap in South Africa is still huge, certainly not to be compared to things we are used to here in Europe. And if you are frustrated, feeling that you are being held back because of things you have no control over, it's easy to lash out at someone based on an easy to digest dichotomy.

 

And the feeling of being held back purely because of skin colour isn't completely baseless. From what I understand, a lot of the fertile land in South Africa is, because of historical reasons, still in the hands of white people. And because of practical reasons -land reform in Zimbabwe has been a total disaster because land was taken from whites and given to people who had no idea how to manage the land- the status quo has not been changed too much. And if land is redistributed, it's the government that takes it. That doesn't make it right to start to dislike white people, but it does make it understandable. And with understandable, I mean, it's not something unexpected and odd to happen. It's also really a situation that in time needs to be resolved. If you close your eyes to it, then you risk that in South Africa eventually the same thing happens that happened in Zimbabwe.

 

It's not just black people who play the race card, by the way. You have Afrikaners -that is white people of Afrikaner descent- that say that these days, white people can't get decent jobs anymore because of black people dominance - in fact there are insular Afrikaner groups, still longing for the good old days, who use this as an excuse to say that things were better when there was still apartheid. They are wrong of course, from what I understand white people are still represented far more in the upper classes than black people, it's just that simply being white just doesn't cut it anymore. Besides, not even in the good old days all whites were living in wealth.

 

But yeah. What I really don't understand is why the A.N.C. still has so much power. Mandela was surely a great man, but surely such a corrupt institution can only really leech of one man's reputation for so long, I would think. And they are really not doing enough to lift the poor South Africans out of their situation. That really seems to me to be the main problem that should be given most attention. Why is there no credible alternative?

[BruceVC]

Now I literally am not understanding you at all. What inherent contradiction did you point out? And how does our discussion here...one party a South African citizen, the other a U.S.-ian...say something about U.S. society at large that could possibly be considered anything more than anecdotal at best? I would also like to remind you that you're the one that contradicted my - the one that actually lives in the U.S. - perspective...and without posting anything more than anecdotal evidence (the same as myself, again, excepting that I actually live in the U.S....), while I pointed out that that mere words like we've both only supplied - without evidence, without any logical reasoning - would be unlikely to sway somebody of any persuasion. And your latest counterpoint is that you've somehow pointed out an "inherent contradiction" in my logic? What logic? All I did was bring up some anecdotal evidence and my own perspective, same as you did.

 It doesn't matter where I live, human nature in a country as large and opinionated as the USA doesn't change. I don't need to live in the USA to have an opinion on its culture considering how accessible and transparent everything in the USA is. I can read blogs, go to websites and actually chat online to people in the USA at anytime who study the nature of discourse in the USA ...and I can promise you  many people see the polarization as robust debate  

 

You made an original point that the USA is a polarized culture ...I said its probably just your view based on your perception 

 

And Barti please stop asking me to provide evidence to support my view ...you sound like KP, its annoying   . Its irrelevant to my point when what I am saying is obvious. If I say " Obama is president of the USA " you won't ask me to produce evidence

 

There is this new way of debating from some people on these forums where a standard response is " can you produce evidence " instead of just disputing the point intellectually

Lets not be lazy, you notice I don't ask you for evidence 

[Bartimaeus]

It does matter when you're contesting what I'm saying, or, in this case, outright contradicting it - something you still haven't taken back nor apologized for, I might add. Nor was it something I did to you, so why would you ask for evidence on my part? I was not saying your perspective was wrong like you're doing to me: I was just saying that I have a different one, and I also said mere words weren't going to convince anybody of anything. I made an edit to my previous post, just in the event that this topic was going to get back more on topic:

 

(e): JadedWolf's post after mine here reminded me of what this thread was originally about: Bruce complaining that he didn't like it when others dismissed his opinions and perspective out of hand because of his skin color...and now he's doing the same to me because he's been to the U.S. a few times and thinks he knows better. The irony is palpable.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[kgambit]

 

 

You made an original point that the USA is a polarized culture ...I said its probably just your view based on your perception 

 

 

And how is that any different than you expressing your view based on your perceptions and experiences?  I honestly do not understand what makes your point of view special Bruce.  For all you know, Bartimaeus' close circle MIGHT in fact be extremely polarized in their opinions.    You might at least afford him the respect that his opinion deserves instead of being dismissive of it.

[BruceVC]

I've been trying not to butt into this discussion. People on this forum have, in the past, pointed out that I have strong opinions on things which are based entirely on second hand information about things I have no real relevant experience in. I've come to accept that, really, they are absolutely right. So, while absolutely admitting that I've never been to South Africa and that my opinions may not be worth much, I'd still like to say some things. First, let me just say that it seems very lame to me to discredit someone's opinion on the basis that you think think they can't see things straight because of their skin colour. But on the other hand, I can totally understand why some black people in South Africa might take that stance - understand, I mean, not saying that they are right to think that way. From what I can tell, the social gap in South Africa is still huge, certainly not to be compared to things we are used to here in Europe. And if you are frustrated, feeling that you are being held back because of things you have no control over, it's easy to lash out at someone based on an easy to digest dichotomy.

 

And the feeling of being held back purely because of skin colour isn't completely baseless. From what I understand, a lot of the fertile land in South Africa is, because of historical reasons, still in the hands of white people. And because of practical reasons -land reform in Zimbabwe has been a total disaster because land was taken from whites and given to people who had no idea how to manage the land- the status quo has not been changed too much. And if land is redistributed, it's the government that takes it. That doesn't make it right to start to dislike white people, but it does make it understandable. And with understandable, I mean, it's not something unexpected and odd to happen. It's also really a situation that in time needs to be resolved. If you close your eyes to it, then you risk that in South Africa eventually the same thing happens that happened in Zimbabwe.

 

It's not just black people who play the race card, by the way. You have Afrikaners -that is white people of Afrikaner descent- that say that these days, white people can't get decent jobs anymore because of black people dominance - in fact there are insular Afrikaner groups, still longing for the good old days, who use this as an excuse to say that things were better when there was still apartheid. They are wrong of course, from what I understand white people are still represented far more in the upper classes than black people, it's just that simply being white just doesn't cut it anymore. Besides, not even in the good old days all whites were living in wealth.

 

But yeah. What I really don't understand is why the A.N.C. still has so much power. Mandela was surely a great man, but surely such a corrupt institution can only really leech of one man's reputation for so long, I would think. And they are really not doing enough to lift the poor South Africans out of their situation. That really seems to me to be the main problem that should be given most attention. Why is there no credible alternative?

Thats not a bad assessment, I'm impressed with how you have  identified some of the issues but each one you mentioned is actually more complex which only adds to the nuances 

 

For example as you said Zimbabwe tried the much threatened African diatribe " lets take the land from the whites and nationalize the economy. We are black Africans and we don't need whites or colonialists "  and they did it .....could it work? African countries gave it tacit support as the perceived influence and ownership of resources that whites have in some African countries is a contentious point as you can understand

 

But what happened? It didn't just fail...it was an epic fail. They don't use there currency anymore, they have an 80 % unemployment rate , they have very little productive land, they lost most foreign investment and 30 %  of there population has become economic migrants and is forced to work in neighboring  countries ....and they send money  back to support the unemployed family members stuck in Zim

 

This was a terrible lesson to learn for Zim but an important one for the region... " don't underestimate the value of white people...they do contribute " 

,

So now in South Africa the ANC is aware of this and is understandably very nervous to do anything that will impact the economy. Our government run parastatals like the national airline and electricity provider  are suppose to be profitable yet every single year they require billions of rands of bailouts to keep them afloat. So the ANC are well aware that they are not really good at running profitable businesses. So the public sector is a mess...yet the private sector where  I work is very profitable and honestly keeps the country going due to the taxes and employment 

 

And now you understand some of the background this next point will make sense. Many black South Africans are unemployed and feel disenfranchised and disillusioned in the new South Africa...20 years after Apartheid they are not only unemployed but also the whites still own 65 % of the land

 

And the ANC will not legislate to change this as everyone knows what happened to Zim. But the main reason for the high unemployment, about 30 %  , is the fact they are unemployable ..the education system in the public sector is so bad that people are pushed through to grade 12 and  " pass " yet they can't speak English. So they won't get a job in the private sector so they end up on social grants and basically never ever work 

 

But we accept this reality, we help the blacks we can. Anyway you can understand how some blacks feel upset and also feel whites are  " privileged " even though Apartheid ended 21 years ago. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

You made an original point that the USA is a polarized culture ...I said its probably just your view based on your perception 

 

 

And how is that any different than you expressing your view based on your perceptions and experiences?  I honestly do not understand what makes your point of view special Bruce.  For all you know, Bartimaeus' close circle MIGHT in fact be extremely polarized in their opinions.    You might at least afford him the respect that his opinion deserves instead of being dismissive of it.

 

Fair enough, I accept that Barti is correct about the polarization in his town or circles he moves in. I admit there are dysfunctional groups in the USA ....we all watch Jerry Springer 

 

But this doens't apply to the whole USA ....and you guys think I am being dismissive and arrogant, I have no issue admitting I am wrong...lets at least give me some credit ?

[Bartimaeus]

About six posts later after your original request as to why I felt the way you did (and then your subsequent dismissal of me), you admit at least that (and only just barely). Well done: really setting the standards in both humility and grace, Bruce.

 

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

About six posts later after your original request as to why I felt the way you did (and then your subsequent dismissal of me), you admit at least that (and only just barely). Well done: really setting the standards in both humility and grace, Bruce.

 

Barti I can't seem to win with you ...I get attacked for disagreeing with you and then attacked for agreeing....maybe tell me next time how I should respond ?

 

Also I am not dismissing your point as much as  just disagreeing....which is the purpose of a debate isn't it ? I don't think you should worry about grace in a debate surly ..lets just discuss the issue and stop worrying about the PC element ? 

[Bartimaeus]

Attacked? You're the one dismissing people's opinions and perspectives out of hand, Bruce, not me. You're also the one that called me lazy and annoying for daring trying to make you back up your assertion that I was wrong. You did not just disagree with my opinion: you said I was "misunderstanding the reality in the USA and seeing something that is just an aspect as the big picture", "you are confusing internet debates and U.S. politics as a reflection of society", "[it] appears I (BruceVC) do know more about American society than you guys if you are seriously suggesting that US society is polarized"...all only based on your "numerous trips to the USA". And then went on about a bunch of stuff like Obama and free speech that was peripheral to the discussion at best while claiming that you pointed out an "inherent contradiction" in what I was saying...which I asked you to expound upon, which you never did. That's not mere disagreement: that is dismissal. Worse, you have the gall to insult me for bothering to ask for any sort of evidence or logical argument as to why you think you do - you're the one contradicting me, remember? I, on the other hand, merely stated that nobody was going to be convinced by just words without actual evidence or logic-based arguments...and for good reason, as this discussion has very clearly shown.

 

And don't call me surly. I prefer "prickly", or "cantankerous", or "crotchety", or...

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

Attacked? You're the one dismissing people's opinions and perspectives out of hand, Bruce, not me. You're also the one that called me lazy and annoying for daring trying to make you back up your assertion that I was wrong. You did not just disagree with my opinion: you said I was "misunderstanding the reality in the USA and seeing something that is just an aspect as the big picture", "you are confusing internet debates and U.S. politics as a reflection of society", "[it] appears I (BruceVC) do know more about American society than you guys if you are seriously suggesting that US society is polarized"...all only based on your "numerous trips to the USA". And then went on about a bunch of stuff like Obama and free speech that was peripheral to the discussion at best while claiming that you pointed out an "inherent contradiction" in what I was saying...which I asked you to expound upon, which you never did. That's not mere disagreement: that is dismissal. Worse, you have the gall to insult me for bothering to ask for any sort of evidence or logical argument as to why you think you do - you're the one contradicting me, remember? I, on the other hand, merely stated that nobody was going to be convinced by just words without actual evidence or logic-based arguments...and for good reason, as this discussion has very clearly shown.

 

And don't call me surly. I prefer "prickly", or "cantankerous", or "crotchety", or...

 Actually thats not accurate..I agreed you were right about your circles ?

 

It sounds like you think I am being condescending again...I hope not because I have really working hard on not doing that 

 

But I can't retract the whole " asking for evidence " ....this is not how we debate as it creates a distraction and suddenly people " win " a debate because they can post the most links...also suddenly I am expected to read all these webpages and I get criticized for " not debating in good faith " if I don't read long articles

 

No lets just keep this debate normal and not use links unless really necessary

Edited July 23, 2015 by BruceVC

[Bartimaeus]

There was a really, super, extraordinarily way of doing that that I have been "alluding" to in about my last half dozen posts or so: don't directly contradict what somebody else says if there isn't evidence or a logical argument to be found either way - or if you can't be bothered to actually field one yourself - whether it's in support of or in opposition of yourself. What you're doing is highly anti-intellectual* and, not to mention, just plain insulting and, yes, condescending. What did you expect me to say in return to you contradicting me? "Nuh-uh, my anecdotal experiences disagree with yours!"? I already said my piece in regards to my own thoughts: the only thing left to discuss was where you get off on of telling people they're wrong without you being able to form any sort of respectable argument as to why you think that somebody is wrong. I never contradicted your personal experiences and perspective, because I can't logically do so in good faith without actual evidence that suggests that you're wrong. You, on the other hand, seem to have no issue in doing exactly just that.

 

(e): The only other thing I could've done is actually given proper evidence...of which there is plenty of for my original point of increasing polarization in America, such as here...but of course, you don't want to go to evidence and logic-based arguments, because...what, that would make it difficult for you - and I do mean specifically you - to continue arguing your own "points"?

 

*noun: a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality; noun: a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectual

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

There was a really, super, extraordinarily way of doing that that I have been "alluding" to in about my last half dozen posts or so: don't directly contradict what somebody else says if there isn't evidence or a logical argument to be found either way - or if you can't be bothered to actually field one yourself - whether it's in support of or in opposition of yourself. What you're doing is highly anti-intellectual* and, not to mention, just plain insulting and, yes, condescending. What did you expect me to say in return to you contradicting me? "Nuh-uh, my anecdotal experiences disagree with yours!"? I already said my piece in regards to my own thoughts: the only thing left to discuss was where you get off on of telling people they're wrong without you being able to form any sort of respectable argument as to why you think that somebody is wrong. I never contradicted your personal experiences and perspective, because I can't logically do so in good faith without actual evidence that suggests that you're be wrong. You, on the other hand, seem to have no issue in doing exactly just that.

 

(e): The only other thing I could've done is actually given proper evidence...of which there is plenty of for my original point of increasing polarization in America, such as here...but of course, you don't want to go to evidence and logic-based arguments, because...what, that would make it difficult for you - and I do mean specifically you - to continue arguing your own "points"?

 

*noun: a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality; noun: a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectual

 

Okay I'll try not to say you are wrong...but I'm not sure how I would disagree with you then?

 

I dont mind the odd link...I'll read this

[Bartimaeus]

If you want to disagree with somebody without getting into an argument with them, a good first step would be to not make wild assertions that they're incorrect, and then only use anecdotal evidence to back yourself up...and then say that logic and evidence are anathema to a so called "friendly discussion". That is the very opposite of the normal behavior of someone that just wants to have a friendly discussion: that is being anti-intellectual and anti-reason, which will never, ever, in a million years ever make for a "friendly discussion". If your evidence is purely anecdotal like theirs, you read their post, and then you say, "Really? I've only had opposite experiences in regard to this issue...", and then the other person can expound upon what they were saying with more anecdotal experiences...OR, if they wish, bring in actual evidence and logic. Communication is a two-way street...and you only control one of those two ways, Bruce: if someone wants to bring in logic and evidence, and you can't argue or cope with it, the normal thing to do - that is, the thing most reasonable people would consider the normal thing to do - would be to bow out of the discussion instead of obstinately going on and on and on and on about points - points that others have either already disputed or conceded were valid either directly or indirectly* but were still not enough to actually convince them of your position - like you do without hardly ever actually bloody adding anything new to the discussion.

 

If you do want to say somebody is actually wrong - like you seem to so much of the time - you had best be prepared to back up what you're saying to an at least slightly greater degree than they can theirs (i.e. NOT anecdotal evidence vs anecdotal evidence). That's the important bit.

 

*If one does not have a counter to a point, then it's usually because one can not counter said point or it is deemed irrelevant to the discussion at hand: one must use discretion in the latter case, depending on how central of a point it actually was to your discussion/argument, and what exactly the other person is arguing against must then be re-evaluated.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

If you want to disagree with somebody without getting into an argument with them, a good first step would be to not make wild assertions that they're incorrect, and then only use anecdotal evidence to back yourself up...and then say that logic and evidence are anathema to a so called "friendly discussion". That is the very opposite of the normal behavior of someone that just wants to have a friendly discussion: that is being anti-intellectual and anti-reason, which will never, ever, in a million years ever make for a "friendly discussion". If your evidence is purely anecdotal like theirs, you read their post, and then you say, "Really? I've only had opposite experiences in regard to this issue...", and then the other person can expound upon what they were saying with more anecdotal experiences...OR, if they wish, bring in actual evidence and logic. Communication is a two-way street...and you only control one of those two ways, Bruce: if someone wants to bring in logic and evidence, and you can't argue or cope with it, the normal thing to do - that is, the thing most reasonable people would consider the normal thing to do - would be to bow out of the discussion instead of obstinately going on and on and on and on about points - points that others have either already disputed or conceded were valid either directly or indirectly* but were still not enough to actually convince them of your position - like you do without hardly ever actually bloody adding anything new to the discussion.

 

If you do want to say somebody is actually wrong - like you seem to so much of the time - you had best be prepared to back up what you're saying to an at least slightly greater degree than they can theirs (i.e. NOT anecdotal evidence vs anecdotal evidence). That's the important bit.

 

*If one does not have a counter to a point, then it's usually because one can not counter said point or it is deemed irrelevant to the discussion at hand: one must use discretion in the latter case, depending on how central of a point it actually was to your discussion/argument, and what exactly the other person is arguing against must then be re-evaluated.

I want to respond but I dont want to be called condescending ? Then I would feel I haven't beaten that bad habit..granted you may be exaggerating but kgambit also said I was being rude so I am going to agree I probably was condescending

 

I would prefer if you just accepted my views as the proof instead of a long protracted debate with various links where you eventually concede that the USA is not a polarized society  ...but as kgambit said we haven't actually defined what polarization means? For me it means issues that could rip the country and society apart for years and this would destroy its economy like Zim

 

Whats your definition? 

[Bartimaeus]

Well, that's simply not how a "discussion" works: has anyone, when coming from an opposing viewpoint, ever just flat-out accepted and agreed with what you said, Bruce? I would need...heh...proof of it if you said they had. I also doubt, from what I know, that I would ever concede the issue, because all evidence I've ever heard points to the U.S. becoming increasingly polarized, and so far, you haven't said anything that empirically suggests otherwise...but hey, if you can conjure up evidence, I'll gladly hear it.

 

Polarization: "Noun: a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions" is essentially what I going with.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

Well, that's simply not how a "discussion" works: has anyone, when coming from an opposing viewpoint, ever just flat-out accepted and agreed with what you said, Bruce? I would need...heh...proof of it if you said they had. I also doubt, from what I know, that I would ever concede the issue, because all evidence I've ever heard points to the U.S. becoming increasingly polarized, and so far, you haven't said anything that empirically suggests otherwise...but hey, if you can conjure up evidence, I'll gladly hear it.

 

Polarization: "Noun: a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions" is essentially what I going with.

Yes but you need to be more specific in terms of how harmful this is to the USA overall....is it to be expected so its normal?

Are we talking about states wanting to secede..or this is just robust debate and anger but there is no suggestion the USA economy will collapse ?

 

You cant say "this is splitting the USA into different ideologies " as the USA has always had vastly different views on topics like immigration and gay marriage so all that is different now is some things have been decided by the Supreme Court  ?

 

So what are you worried may happen ?

[Bartimaeus]

Didn't I already pretty clearly spell out what I meant in my first two replies to you?

 

My point, I guess, was that I'm trying to see both sides of the argument, and that the situation/issue seems terribly complex and nuanced...and it's unfortunate that all of us...or at least most of us...live in polarized societies where it's (increasingly?) difficult for people to consider the perspectives of those on the other side of the wall, and that issues such as these aren't likely to be resolved any time soon and/or with any semblance of effectiveness as a consequence of that.

I'll speak for the U.S., since that's where I currently reside: most everything seems highly polarized here in general U.S. society. Democrat vs. Republican, pro-choice vs. pro-life, pro-same-sex marriage vs. the opposite, pro-multiculturism vs. anti-multiculturism, pro-Israel vs. anti-Israel, etc. You get a wider variety of opinions on these issues in forums like these, but in general society, it feels like everyone is so polarized about most everything. It's tiring and depressing, particularly when you consider the fact that it doesn't have to be this way. *shrug*

I don't think I much left anything I wanted to say unstated (e: at least, in regards to this topic: I very clearly stated how increasing polarization is, in my opinion, affecting an issue like this).

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

Didn't I already pretty clearly spell out what I meant in my first two replies to you?

 

 

 

My point, I guess, was that I'm trying to see both sides of the argument, and that the situation/issue seems terribly complex and nuanced...and it's unfortunate that all of us...or at least most of us...live in polarized societies where it's (increasingly?) difficult for people to consider the perspectives of those on the other side of the wall, and that issues such as these aren't likely to be resolved any time soon and/or with any semblance of effectiveness as a consequence of that.

 

 

 

I'll speak for the U.S., since that's where I currently reside: most everything seems highly polarized here in general U.S. society. Democrat vs. Republican, pro-choice vs. pro-life, pro-same-sex marriage vs. the opposite, pro-multiculturism vs. anti-multiculturism, pro-Israel vs. anti-Israel, etc. You get a wider variety of opinions on these issues in forums like these, but in general society, it feels like everyone is so polarized about most everything. It's tiring and depressing, particularly when you consider the fact that it doesn't have to be this way. *shrug*

 

I don't think I much left anything I wanted to say unstated.

 

Okay so based on this equivocation I have to assume you have no idea how seriously these issues will impact the USA. And that's fine there is no way to accurately predict what this means for the USA

 

But I am more confident...none of these will lead to the crashing of the economy or an utter failure of congress. So you really just having some controversial and heated debates that seem worse then they are

 

So our definitions are completely different therefore we were having a pointless debate  

[Bartimaeus]

Okay so based on this equivocation I have to assume you have no idea how seriously these issues will impact the USA. And that's fine there is no way to accurately predict what this means for the USA

 

But I am more confident...none of these will lead to the crashing of the economy or an utter failure of congress. So you really just having some controversial and heated debates that seem worse then they are

 

So our definitions are completely different therefore we were having a pointless debate

I never, ever, even sort of said any of those things, though, or even vaguely referenced them.  I said what effect increasing polarization was having upon issues like the one we were discussing...you know, the one that this topic is about...and you went off on a completely unrelated tangent while also engaging in the very behavior you were complaining about in your original post in the topic?

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[kgambit]

 

 

I would prefer if you just accepted my views as the proof instead of a long protracted debate with various links where you eventually concede that the USA is not a polarized society  ...but as kgambit said we haven't actually defined what polarization means? For me it means issues that could rip the country and society apart for years and this would destroy its economy like Zim

 

 

 

Thank you for finally defining it.  At least now I understand your point of reference and the basis for your comments.       

 

As for accepting your views as "proof", ah sorry but no.  I'll respect your right to express your opinion but I won't accept your views as proof based solely on your say so.    

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I would prefer if you just accepted my views as the proof instead of a long protracted debate with various links where you eventually concede that the USA is not a polarized society  ...but as kgambit said we haven't actually defined what polarization means? For me it means issues that could rip the country and society apart for years and this would destroy its economy like Zim

 

 

 

Thank you for finally defining it.  At least now I understand your point of reference and the basis for your comments.        

 

As for accepting your views as "proof", ah sorry but no.  I'll respect your right to express your opinion but I won't accept your views as proof based solely on your say so.    

 

 But you would force me to prove you wrong? Why not just avoid all that and agree with me ?

 

Also I am still not clear on what Barti  definition of polarization is?  You good at deciphering things ...what is he saying ?

[Bartimaeus]

Also I am still not clear on what Barti  definition of polarization is?  You good at deciphering things ...what is he saying ?

 

Here:

 

 

My point, I guess, was that I'm trying to see both sides of the argument, and that the situation/issue seems terribly complex and nuanced...and it's unfortunate that all of us...or at least most of us...live in polarized societies where it's (increasingly?) difficult for people to consider the perspectives of those on the other side of the wall, and that issues such as these aren't likely to be resolved any time soon and/or with any semblance of effectiveness as a consequence of that.

Now that makes sense, I get that 100 % and its interesting

 

 

(e): The only other thing I could've done is actually given proper evidence...of which there is plenty of for my original point of increasing polarization in America, such as here...

 

Polarization: "Noun: a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions" is essentially what I going with.

I never, ever, even sort of said any of those things, though, or even vaguely referenced them. I said what effect increasing polarization was having upon issues like the one we were discussing...you know, the one that this topic is about...and you went off on a completely unrelated tangent while also engaging in the very behavior you were complaining about in your original post in the topic?

Put it all together, Bruce... It's just English, after all.

 

I believe you Barti....its obvious you are not good at basic English comprehension. But I wouldn't feel bad about this, its not like English is your first language

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

Also I am still not clear on what Barti  definition of polarization is?  You good at deciphering things ...what is he saying ?

 

Here:

 

 

My point, I guess, was that I'm trying to see both sides of the argument, and that the situation/issue seems terribly complex and nuanced...and it's unfortunate that all of us...or at least most of us...live in polarized societies where it's (increasingly?) difficult for people to consider the perspectives of those on the other side of the wall, and that issues such as these aren't likely to be resolved any time soon and/or with any semblance of effectiveness as a consequence of that.

Now that makes sense, I get that 100 % and its interesting

 

 

(e): The only other thing I could've done is actually given proper evidence...of which there is plenty of for my original point of increasing polarization in America, such as here...

 

Polarization: "Noun: a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions" is essentially what I going with.

I never, ever, even sort of said any of those things, though, or even vaguely referenced them. I said what effect increasing polarization was having upon issues like the one we were discussing...you know, the one that this topic is about...and you went off on a completely unrelated tangent while also engaging in the very behavior you were complaining about in your original post in the topic?

Put it all together, Bruce... It's just English, after all.

 

I believe you Barti....its obvious you are not good at basic English comprehension. But I wouldn't feel bad about this, its not like English is your first language