Incivility in Politics

From iGeek
(Redirected from Category:Incivility)
Jump to: navigation, search

The point of this isn't to blame one side or the other in incivility in Politics, both sides have plenty to be ashamed of. But I hate hypocrisy and lies, or bad rationalizations. Punching your sibling and then crying, "they started it" when they hit back, is a bit chickenshit to me, and should be called out. Either side can take the high road, and "lead by example". If your side is trying to do better, but is falling short, is far different than just using the other sides bad behavior to rationalize your own. So this just lists some of the history of incivility in the nations politics, to call bullshit on whoever is claiming, "they started it".


2018.06.22 The Red Hen -
2018.06.22 - The Red Hen (D) - The co-owner of a Restaurant (Stephanie Wilkinson) was a Pussy-Hat wearing Social Justice Warrior activist, and asked the White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and her friends and family, to leave her Restaurant, because she didn't agree with the administration's politics. Sarah complied and went home, her family went across the street to dine, while Wilkinson called other friends and activists to start a protest and harass them while they dined across the street. Democrats defended the action, some like Maxine Water went and encouraged all members of the administration to be harassed, wherever they went. And much of the leftist media wrote/published OpEds about how they should never be free from harassment. And defended the complaints with dishonest narratives and meme's like comparing to one shop owner who asked Joe Biden to not use his shop as a campaign stop: obviously not alike to the rational but they left out enough context to make it seem similar. This action divided the neighborhood and the nation. asdasd
2nd Amendment was for muskets -
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
Black Lives Matter -
2013 - Black Lives Matter - A community watch guy (George Zimmerman) was ambushed and assaulted by a violent criminal teen that had MMA mounted him and pounding his head into the cement. After Zimmerman defended himself, a few black agitators colluded with the media to invent a false narrative that Whites (especially cops) could shoot black people for "no reason", and without consequences. And they created "Black Lives Matter" to lead that false narrative. Their first protest was after a young drug abusing thief Michael Brown, assaulted a cop (after robbing a liquor store), and was shot to death while charging the cop, they again invented a false narrative, "Hands up, don't shoot". And the continued to agitate, create violent riots and protests, had their members assassinate cops, and random racist assaults on white people (by black people) because of their race, all went up. That dishonest and incivility in the narrative, justified, among the left, any actions they did, or anything the said: no matter how untrue or offensive. And to this day, they will not give an inch that their side has made any mistakes.
Gun Deaths - A lot of people claim they care about gun deaths, or gun accidents, or gun murder rates. When you explore that a little deeper, you find most people are not being truthful (either with you, or themselves). How do we know? Examples like this where there are far more serious issues, and the ignore it. Either they don't know the basic facts (and should be ignored as uninformed), or they don't really care about what they claim to care about (and should be ignored as untruthful) -- but if you know about guns, and gun deaths, you can't come out on the side of what the gun controllers want.
Guns don't kill people: Democrats kill people - If gun controllers are choosing not to "get it", I'll start messing with them, and play fallacy for fallacy.

I point out: "guns don't kill people, democrats kill people", just do the math ≈80%+ of murders (and crime) is by democrats -- thus whites/Asians with guns, aren't the problem, blacks/latinos/democrat voters with guns are. So, "we don't need gun control, we need Democrat control", since the rest of don't have a gun problem (white republicans have 1/4th the murder/violent crime rates than the Democrat average does).

Suddenly, their inner statistician comes out. They point out (accurately), that:

  • correlation isn't causality, so we haven't proved cause.
  • they suddenly want to talk about how you can't assume that everyone in a dataset is responsible for the aberration (e.g. most democrats aren't the problem, it's a small subset that's dragging the average up), they cry, "Averages, don't tell the whole story"

...and I reply, "ya don't say?"

They conveniently forget all those things when broad-brush blaming all gun-owners (or all of America), for the crimes/murders of a few illegal gun owners (and gang-bangers) in a few democrat controlled cities. But you narrow it down to a smaller more responsible subset (those who vote democrat), and they suddenly remember statistics 101 and recognize all the problems of the very fallacious arguments they've been using against our gun liberties all along. They just only selectively recognize those problems depending on if they are being applied to their side, on the other side. Proving they're not dumb, just dishonest.

Handgun Emoji -
Emoji's mean things. But when political correctness/the left gets involved, they can't win arguments on merit/reason, so they often pervert the language, to trip people up and distract. For example, a tool (gun) was too hostile... so they had to change the language to omit it, and replace it with a squirt gun instead (🔫), even-though a squirt gun and a real gun have completely different meanings. Stalin would have been proud and that kind of revisionism. Google, Apple and Microsoft, see nothing wrong with it.
History -
Always - History - There's a dozen examples of distortions about history, and being unable to talk or disagree about it. From the Iraq War and Vietnam War, to almost everything about Lyndon Johnson, JFK, Reagan or FDR. The whole Democrat/Media version of Joe McCarthy has little relationship to reality. Dropping the Bomb on Japan has been distorted to practically be an unprovoked attack by Republicans. If you disagree with any of it, you're a right wing fascist, as long as you ignore that the fascists were actually Democratic Socialists. And how do you discuss this with any of them, when doing so violates their safe spaces, and is just you trying to justify taking us back to the Antebellum South?
Iraq War -
2003 - Iraq War - This is another example of a lack of civility. From the moment George W. Bush won the election, the Democrats lost their minds and had another hissy fit and 7 recounts that all showed he won, and the Supreme Court had to step in and say enough already. Then [Iraq War Quotes|the democrats screamed that Sadam had WMD's]] in 1999 and it justified a war. So 9/11 happens and Democrats vote for the War in Iraq, demand action, and that we go into Iraq, and the intelligence agencies called it a "Slam Dunk" that Iraq had WMD's: so Bush agrees with the Democrats. And then they scream that "Bush lied, people died". This was the first Preemptive War, ever.... other than all the others. It wasn't just that they changed their minds on the war, or a debate about when/how we should get out. No, everyone who disagreed with them was an evil warmonger: no war should ever be started unless a direct threat to America (ignore that Dems got us into Vietnam, Kosovo, WWI, and Libya without a direct threat). Or Dems yelled that Iraq was a fraud to steal their oil, something we never did. Or that America made Saddam, an extreme distortion of a nuanced reality. The debate wasn't a rational one about where does coercion or physical harm go to far: it was histrionics about war crimes and torture by socialites that had no idea the scars and broken bones or death that real torture leaves in its wake.
Memes-MarchForOurLives - Generation TidePod demonstrates their life's ambition is to be sock-puppets for the Police State.
Nuclear Option -
Since 1806 the Senate said there was no time limit on debate, even if that meant that one could talk a bill to death, and it died because a few could gang up to block it (and take the heat from their constituents) for doing so. Progressives/Democrats despise their agendas be thwarted so in 1917 they changed it to require a two-thirds super-majority, so that at least if 66% agreed, the majority could step on the will/rights of the minority (let's call that the Tactical Nuclear Option). Then in 1975 Democrats/Progressives reduced it to three-fifths: 60%. Then finally, when they were tantruming over their lousy judicial nominees getting blocked, rather than compromising, they just used this "Nuclear Option" to change the rules entirely so 50%+1 could step on the rights of the minority of the Senate and country. Republicans warned this would bite them in the ass, and sooner than they thought. And in April 2017 (after Trump won the election, and nominated an eminently qualified Jurist Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court , and the Democrats refused to even consider him: not because of qualifications but as revenge), the Republicans used the Nuclear Option back, and the left lost, owned none of their own actions in any of it, and blamed everything on the Republicans.
Polemic Democrats -
I have no problems with Democrats who complain about the rude right polemics (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Milo Yiannopoulos). What I have a problem with is hypocrisy by those who ignore that those are commentators and not the political leadership -- then ignore that their side has many more like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders -- who are leaders of their party, behaving as bad (or worse). And they have their media and their celebrities in 100x the quantity of the right, that make the right's few polemics look like moderates. Not to mention whole hate organizations and institutions like the SPLC, MediMatters, BLM, that exist solely to misrepresent the other side and create agitprop. They can't even fathom that Donald Trump is just backlash against their behavior, and is only tolerated because he's using the same techniques the left has used for decades, right back at them: and they hate it. Without any introspection of how it could happen, or why they should behave better to shame him, not worse to justify his behavior.
Reasonable Gun Laws -
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more. If you want to be reasonable, you first need to be informed, and get the basics right. How can you reason with an ignoramus (well meaning or not)? So the first step to reasonable gun laws, is educating the gun controllers, on what guns are, how they work, and how bad the current laws are.


I know it looks like I'm blaming all the bad behavior in History on the Democrats or Progressives. I'm not. I'm contrasting the popular narrative in our schools, media and by the left, that they are the saints, and the other side is always at fault. As soon as they can admit that their shit does stink, just as bad as the other side, we can make progress. Not because the conservatives/Republicans are saints, they just have an older and more mature demographic. When you're young and gullible, every cause is the most important one in the universe: you haven't yet learned to value moderation, skepticism, manners, harmony and leaving others alone. So everything is a cause, and their ability to moderate (including tone and hysterics) just isn't there yet. And more young people are Democrats and are used by the Democrats as their sock puppets.

So the right's PRIME motivation is NOT sensationalizing how bad everything is to enact change, even if they use it as a tool like the left does. Their position is towards stability and "things aren't that bad" is different than the chicken-little left that sees every crisis as an opportunity to prey on youth and gullible or disenfranchised minorities to get change -- if things stop "progressing" to the left, then it's the end of civilization and we're reverting back to slavery, Jim Crow, when women couldn't vote or get birth control or abortions, and other excuses for cater-walling to get out the vote, protests or things that draw attention (and money/votes) to their coffers. The sides motivations are different, so the behaviors are different.

One of the key points of this article is to refute the utterly inane claim that "this all started with Trump". No it didn't. There has always been a bit of incivility in politics -- what's changed is that since the 1970's the Democrats not only convinced themselves they're right on everything (especially the stuff that the History and the facts proves them wrong on)... and that they are morally superior, and thus anything they do is justified: lie, scream obscenities, punch a Nazi in the face (and all conservatives or people who don't think like them are closet-Nazi's), take away their rights. They can suppress free speech, undermine the Constitution (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments), and so on, and that their side does nothing wrong -- but when you show them they have, it's OK because it was justified by the other side's far milder reposes to their prior agitations.

Written 2018.07.05