Senator Sinema is no longer a Democrat

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

13 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

 

@Danioover9000 You posted this on my thread a couple days ago. Read it carefully and try to convince yourself that it makes even the least bit of sense.

Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this up, but this literal coat-hanger abortion of an attempted cogent sentence perfectly encapsulates the insecurities of a desperately juvenile attempt to give the impression of far greater intelligence beyond what you actually have, which would explain why you resorted to the following nonsense seen below.

It cannot be understated how nakedly embarrassing it is to reflexively cast people into some nebulous colors model as a makeshift cover to conceal a childlike inability to intelligently engage with the subject matter.

You have won my 100th eye-roll of the day, sir. Congratulations.

This is just juvenile, and my mental health has been sullied by even affording this any modicum of my attention.

Do you actually believe you've exposed some weak point in my perspective by insisting that my response to an overtly negative event happening means that I'm "triggered" merely by posting a response?

You would be seriously devastated (if it ever magically occurred to you) by the epiphany of how bafflingly unequipped you are to even participate in this discussion with the rest of us.

Unironically about to adopt "You are so hubris" as an inside joke among some IRL friends, lol.

Were you trying to outclass the incoherent drivel you vomited onto my thread a couple days ago?

 

   To be clear, and to clarify for the hundredth time, I'm not here to argue or debate a cultist rationalist/scientist filled with intellectual hubris, so I'll say this one more time and address each point you bring up in as good faith as I can humanly muster, without cursing.

   Yes, about 50% of my threads and mostly posts in other user threads in the political/career sub forum starts with 'depending on your stage of development, cognitive and moral development, ego development, personality typing, life experiences and other lines of development, and worldviews and beliefs systems and ideologies indoctrinated into your mind.', and other variations of that phrasing mainly because the issue being discussed and who is in discussion is relative, that there's much needed nuance and big picture thinking and holistic understanding needed before being reductionist with your view of any issue. This way of me starting is to frame myself as a complex moral person, and to signal to others here that I think more in abstract and complex patterns. 40% of my posts consists of me posting spiritual/paranormal topics in the spiritual sub forum. 10% involved rapping and freestyle rhyming, on the other hand, were me joking about, and I have a short list of users I rap about who are dogmatic, close minded and tend to have demonizing and patronizing language, and it also happens to include you as I found your judgmental posts close minded and insulting. Majority of my posts had little intention of demonizing or name calling.

   Yes, I am cognitively, morally, psychologically and intellectually superior compared to you because I don't engage with debates and arguing as strongly as you do to humiliate other users. That's your problem to resolve, not mine, only I can mention your blind spot and it's up to you to fix that psychological codependency of arguing and debating. Now that could be seen as me not fully engaging with a subject matter and maybe being a jerk, and that's fine, because as soon as you see me engage with a subject matter less, that's a sign that there's not much to continue discussing when a person's mind is closing down. For example when you stereotyped Senator Sinema as a traitor, it seems like a progressive caricature, so I was pointing out how you might have characterized her inaccurately as she may have instead discovered a political alignment more accurate to her, that of being a moderate Republican rather than a Democrat. Maybe that seems traitorous to you, or to those with different biases, opposing biases or even to those in-groups or out-groups, but personally to her that may not be betrayal, in fact remaining inside a political party that's less aligned with your interests is more traitorous than leaving and joining one with closer alignment.

   I've found it useful to peg and put other individuals and other groups into these modals for my own observations and personal heuristics. However, sometimes I can be inaccurate and that's fine as I continue refining my heuristics of stereotyping people and cultures first, then refine later on into more accurate mental representations.

   I will own up to my potential mistakes here, as I stated many times in the past I suck at arguing and debating, maybe I'm not as equipped at debating, but I'm not here to debate, I'm here to talk with an open mind and humbleness, while also having some fun.

   I actually don't have much IRL or internet friends as you think I have, so me stating your intellectual hubris is an observational statement based on your writing style at me and how you tackle topics here, it's just too dogmatic and argumentative for an open minded, good faith and charitable discussion, which I could be wrong for assuming.

   If you don't mind, with whatever remaining level of attention you have, could you clarify to me where I'm wrong, or being uncharitable or bad faith to you? Also, to @Leo Gura and @Carl-Richard, where in my discussion with @DrugsBunny and other users here am I being uncharitable or bad faith, or am I more good faith and charitable?

[Danioover9000]

@Godhead

On 2022-12-11 at 6:05 PM, Godhead said:

As far as I know, Hitler was an infant when his older brother died, I doubt that had any significant effect on him.

The Nazi party didn't exist back then. He joined the DAP.

   That's fine, as I am wrong in the little details, but him losing his older brother and joining the DAP and other areas of his life back then played a significant part when taken as a whole. That and I was just using Stalin and Hitler as extreme examples of traitorous behavior which contrasts strongly to Senator Sinema's apparent betraying of the Democratic party.

[DrugsBunny]

23 hours ago, Godhead said:

There could be a person in congress advocating for the murder of innocent children and some of you would be like: "Bro, come on, why are you criticizing this person, they are clearly stage red, come on bro u need to understand them."

People are criticizing Sinema because her position changed from what she ran on. That's a good thing. We want people to criticize politicians if they do dumb shit. We all understand that she is not a Marxist, people just expect that she does what she promised. This is not a strawman, this is not demonization nor is that projection.

100% Correct. I like Leo's content, but his political takes consistently breed a festering cesspool of mindless followers who reflexively adopt his positions, as they feel sufficiently emboldened by brazenly deferring to the word of their enlightened master without second thought.

I would have less contempt for this lazy deferential submission if it were being done towards Leo's spiritual perspective, but we commonly see people defer to this sycophantic negligence with respect to his politics, which are in no way strengthened by his supposed spiritual mastery.

____________________________________________________________________
 

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Also, to @Leo Gura and @Carl-Richard, where in my discussion with @DrugsBunny and other users here am I being uncharitable or bad faith, or am I more good faith and charitable?

Attempting to invoke a supporting perspective which already agrees with you while asking if you're being bad-faith is too much unintentional comedy for me to process, lol. Do you really not see that you're already bad-faith with this blatant appeal to authority?

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Yes, I am cognitively, morally, psychologically and intellectually superior compared to you because I don't engage with debates and arguing as strongly as you do to humiliate other users.

If you find it humiliating that I would respond by directly addressing your rhetorical short-comings, then perhaps that warrants further introspection on your end regarding why accurate descriptions of your conduct evoke such humiliation.

Do you really think you have out-classed me with respect to argumentative hysterics? I'd like to remind you that you initiated this interaction by responding to my very tame post seen below --
"People knocked on doors, did canvasing and grassroots fundraising to get her elected. She betrayed the values she ran on, how is this not a traitor? I'm personally willing to call her far worse things than a traitor but lets just stick with that for now." -- which you responded with -- "Can you two pack it in with the bullying of moderate centrists? At this point you guys will never ascend to Spiral Dynamics stage yellow with all this demonizing, name calling and inflammatory use of language"
--
Your unflattering denunciations of my character are fair play, claiming that my innocuous statement serves as a significant hindrance to my personal development, but if I follow suit with an appropriate response, this makes you "cognitively, morally, psychologically and intellectually superior". 

My only short-coming is that I would willingly defile my own integrity by awarding such asinine drivel with even my fleeting attention. 

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

29 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

100% Correct. I like Leo's content, but his political takes consistently breed a festering cesspool of mindless followers who reflexively adopt his positions, as they feel sufficiently emboldened by brazenly deferring to the word of their enlightened master without second thought.

I would have less contempt for this lazy deferential submission if it were being done towards Leo's spiritual perspective, but we commonly see people defer to this sycophantic negligence with respect to his politics, which are in no way strengthened by his supposed spiritual mastery.

____________________________________________________________________
 

Attempting to invoke a supporting perspective which already agrees with you while asking if you're being bad-faith is too much unintentional comedy for me to process, lol. Do you really not see that you're already bad-faith with this blatant appeal to authority?

If you find it humiliating that I would respond by directly addressing your rhetorical short-comings, then perhaps that warrants further introspection on your end regarding why accurate descriptions of your conduct evoke such humiliation.

Do you really think you have out-classed me with respect to argumentative hysterics? I'd like to remind you that you initiated this interaction by responding to my very tame post seen below --
"People knocked on doors, did canvasing and grassroots fundraising to get her elected. She betrayed the values she ran on, how is this not a traitor? I'm personally willing to call her far worse things than a traitor but lets just stick with that for now." -- which you responded with -- "Can you two pack it in with the bullying of moderate centrists? At this point you guys will never ascend to Spiral Dynamics stage yellow with all this demonizing, name calling and inflammatory use of language"
--
Your unflattering denunciations of my character are fair play, claiming that my innocuous statement serves as a significant hindrance to my personal development, but if I follow suit with an appropriate response, this makes you "cognitively, morally, psychologically and intellectually superior". 

My only short-coming is that I would willingly defile my own integrity by awarding such asinine drivel with even my fleeting attention. 

   Fair enough and fair play, let's part ways, artfully agree to disagree today to avoid debate and arguing till judgment day. Have a nice day bunny babe.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, DrugsBunny said:

100% Correct. I like Leo's content, but his political takes consistently breed a festering cesspool of mindless followers who reflexively adopt his positions, as they feel sufficiently emboldened by brazenly deferring to the word of their enlightened master without second thought.

I would have less contempt for this lazy deferential submission if it were being done towards Leo's spiritual perspective, but we commonly see people defer to this sycophantic negligence with respect to his politics, which are in no way strengthened by his supposed spiritual mastery.

Most of the people here probably dislike my statements about Sinema.

[How to be wise]

I trust Leo with my politics. 

[Chuco]

She's a corporate politician, not so much a centrist in the same way a Tester or a Durbin is. She literally talks like a customer service rep. And she definitely comes across as shallow, fake, materialistic, because that's exactly how corporate people act. There's nothing wrong with that and I actually kind of like the aesthetics. 

It's worth noting that she never blocked ANY of Biden's judicial nominees and helped organize the senate's support for the gun bill, infrastructure bill and the respect for marriage bill, so she has made some positive contributions. 

The worst thing is that she'll probably hand a seat to the republicans by running as an independent. She's just not popular enough like an Angus King or a Bernie Sanders to win that way. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Chuco