Conflating Patriotism, Party Loyalty, and Faith

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You'll have @Just_A_Guy on your side.  I'll be taking the full on TRUMP 2020 BABY! side.

Heh.

Partly.  

@psych_murse, you weren’t here in 2016, when Anatess and I debated Trump’s merits and vices at length.

That said, I think I’ve reasonably consistently drawn a distinction between Republicans who wholly buy into Trump’s personality cult and for whom he can do no wrong; versus those who sorrowfully make alliance with him in spite of his vices because they simply feel that the Democratic opposition is even more amoral, and more immediately dangerous, than Trump.  I think there are many more of the latter type of folks in the Church, than there are of the former; and I don’t have any espacial hostility towards the latter group (except that I think if they’d put a little more faith in D&C 98:10 they’d find themselves pleasantly surprised and the country as a whole to be better off).

Edited June 19, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest psych_murse]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

How so?

None of my examples was sarcastic. You continue to miss the point, which is simply that people can have all sorts of reasons why they say they support Trump, outside the narrow false dichotomies that you presented.

Let's examine this claim. Here is your judgment on your fellow Saints, a short quote taken directly from your original post for this thread:

Note the bolded statements you make above. Each of them is a judgment that you have passed on your fellow Saints. Each of them is completely made up by you, not said by anyone else, least of all by those whom you are judging. And in each case, you apply your (mis)judgment of your fellow Saints as if what you write is somehow true. You are no longer discussing hypotheticals, if you ever were. You are rather impugning your fellow Saints and acting bewildered at their stupidity.

How can you not see the problem with this?

To apply Trump's words to Mexican immigrants in general is unfair. That much I agree with. But is anything Trump said about the effects of illegal Mexican immigration untrue? Do illegal immigrants not bring drugs? Crime? Rape? And are not some immigrants good people?

Quick question: Does Mexico enforce its southern border against illegal crossings? (Hint: Yes, it does.)

And of course if you are honest, you have to consider the context in which Trump made these statements. The Democrats literally want open borders. Literally. They want no border enforcement. That was the context of Trump's comments, and it is dishonest to remove Trump's comments from that context. In context, Trump was clumsily saying that we need to keep our borders enforced, because if we don't, we invite all sorts of criminal activity.

And of course, Trump was right about that, as any and every honest person must concede. Regardless of his juvenile and possibly inflammatory wording, this is what he was saying. You were there. You know that's what he was saying.

I agree that it was a politically stupid thing to say. Trump is good at saying politically stupid things, and apparently surviving them. But underneath his cloddish wording, Trump had a perfectly valid point. In contrast, what was Clinton's point? "Anyone who disagrees with our Democrat agenda is deplorable."

And you don't think that's divisive?

The two are not even comparable. Clinton's words are vastly more divisive and evil than Trump's.

psych_murse is not rigid in his thinking. Want proof? Just ask him.

Unsupported? Seriously?

Look, I mean no personal offense. I understand that you have a personal and professional vested interest in defending psychology and sociology as scientific endeavors. But you cannot possibly be ignorant of what goes on in published circles. Undoubtedly you are familiar with the infamous Sokal affair. Likely you are familiar with the similar Grievance Studies affair. Whatever your opinions on the relevance or rigor of sociology or psychology, please do not try to claim, explicitly or implicitly, that a sociological study generally meets anything like the same rigorous standard as a published study in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, or any engineering discipline (other than "social engineering" 😂).

Right. You're Mister Information. That's why you are so perplexed at the actions of your fellow Saints. It's because you're so darn unbiased.

Huh? That's totally out of left field. What do "Right wing news outlets" have to do with anything we've been discussing?

...hmmmmm...

...ooooooh. I get it. You're rather artlessly implying that I must get my opinion from believing that "the truth only comes from Right wing news outlets." With no evidence whatsoever, you simply make this assumption and attribute it to me because, after all, that must be what's going on. Because why else would I hold the wrong opinions I do, instead of joining you in your enlightened state?

Remember what I said before about the biases inherent in the mindset of sociology and psychology? The above is a really beautiful little example of exactly that; though I don't expect you will likely concede or even recognize it as such.

What are you talking about? I'm not "offended over all this." Yet another false inference on your part. I have simply been giving direct, simple answers to your questions, reasons why your fellow Saints might believe as they do despite the information that you think is to the contrary. But it does appear that at least one party in this conversation has become offended.

I think that's what the psychologists call "projection".

Serious question: Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own heavy biases and the clear fact that your inability even to understand the opinions of your fellow Saints might be due to your own insufficiencies rather than theirs?

😂 Another great psychology/sociology statement. How can you demonstrate your guarantee? Let's see it. I will pay you $1000 if you can demonstrate your guarantee above, and you pay me $1000 if you cannot. Deal?

I realize it's a bit painful when your sloppy thinking gets called out in a discussion. It happens to the best of us. But stomping your foot, shouting "No fair!", and slinking away isn't the most productive way to proceed. You might do much better to actually internalize and truthfully consider the points I have brought up.

I think this has been a pretty rude reply.  You took my words out of context when it is clear from my post that I had not generalized as broadly as you indicate in your little quote.  You ignorantly use few examples to dismiss two very respected and valid scientific fields.  I enjoy discussing politics, but I think I will just "slink away," as you say, as this is not a very enjoyable conversation.  Your methods are rather obnoxious rather than articulate or intelligent, and I'm not in the mood to engage in your debate style.  I'm sure you think you're clever, but you are making many of the exact assumptions you accuse me of.  I'm done with this game.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Heh.

Partly.  

@psych_murse, you weren’t here in 2016, when Anatess and I debated Trump’s merits and vices at length.

That said, I think I’ve reasonably consistently drawn a distinction between Republicans who wholly buy into Trump’s personality cult and for whom he can do no wrong, versus those who sorrowfully make alliance with him in spite of his vices because they simply feel that the Democratic opposition is even more amoral, and more immediately dangerous, than Trump.  I don’t have any espacial hostility towards the latter group, except that I think if they’d put a little more faith in D&C 98:10 they’d find themselves pleasantly surprised and the country as a whole to be better off.

And I posit... over and over... that if you've had Hillary Clinton as POTUS, not only will the USA have suffered, THE WORLD would have suffered more, especially after saddling us with 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Dubya, and 8 years of Obama.  Now, you're getting ready to saddle us with BIDEN.... ugh!

There's a reason God calls imperfect people to rule at certain times in each dispensation.

 

[Guest psych_murse]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Heh.

Partly.  

@psych_murse, you weren’t here in 2016, when Anatess and I debated Trump’s merits and vices at length.

That said, I think I’ve reasonably consistently drawn a distinction between Republicans who wholly buy into Trump’s personality cult and for whom he can do no wrong; versus those who sorrowfully make alliance with him in spite of his vices because they simply feel that the Democratic opposition is even more amoral, and more immediately dangerous, than Trump.  I think there are many more of the latter type of folks in the Church, than there are of the former; and I don’t have any espacial hostility towards the latter group (except that I think if they’d put a little more faith in D&C 98:10 they’d find themselves pleasantly surprised and the country as a whole to be better off).

Clearly, I gave the impression, in spite of my multiple efforts at being cautious, that I was saying everyone who supported Trump was following his personality cult, as you say.  I appreciate the better tone.  I don't much care for the atmosphere at this place thus far.

[Guest psych_murse]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I will demonstrate to you Fake News in one image... Ready?

 

Now all those bolded phrases above is a by-product of Fake News.

You're a nurse.  I'm a Systems Engineer.  I deal with DATA MODELS.  We don't get personal with the numbers that's why they call Systems Engineers to come up with these objective models and not nurses who looks at the numbers and sees patients and family members they have to tell bad news to.

Oh I can think of multiple occasions where Left-leaning media does this sort of thing.  That said, I find it far more on the Right-leaning media these days.  Some here seem to assume I am some far left whack job, which I assure you I am not.  I am actually a slightly Right-leaning centrist.  But I find the liberal media outlets to more accurately report on the president than the conservative ones.  Hint: if any media outlet gives president praise than critique, it is probably overly biased.  See: Obama presidency.

[Guest psych_murse]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Question for you, psych_murse:

What ever happened to "flatten the curve"? When and why did it morph into "Never ever ever get COVID-19 ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER!"?

Nice!  I false dichotomy!  I appreciate your expertise on the topic.

Edited June 19, 2020 by psych_murse

[Guest psych_murse]

It was good chatting with you all!  Many blessings!

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, psych_murse said:

Clearly, I gave the impression, in spite of my multiple efforts at being cautious, that I was saying everyone who supported Trump was following his personality cult, as you say.  I appreciate the better tone.  I don't much care for the atmosphere at this place thus far.

Dude... you haven't seen nuthin' yet!  @Vort and @Carborendum are two of my favorites on here.  If you get triggered by their "tone", there's not much on the internet you're gonna be comfortable in. 

I'll give you a tip from a child of the nerdy 80's who programmed a pac-man game on a radioshack computer:

"Tone" is mostly your impression of their tone and not necessarily the tone they're actually trying to convey.  Therefore, it's always best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are taking the time to talk to you to facilitate conversation and not to deliberately offend you.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Question for you, psych_murse:

What ever happened to "flatten the curve"? When and why did it morph into "Never ever ever get COVID-19 ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER!"?

I appreciate your expertise on the topic.

Well, that's great. Thanks. Now please answer the questions.

[Guest psych_murse]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Dude... you haven't seen nuthin' yet!  @Vort and @Carborendum are two of my favorites on here.  If you get triggered by their "tone", there's not much on the internet you're gonna be comfortable in. 

I'll give you a tip from a child of the nerdy 80's who programmed a pac-man game on a radioshack computer:

"Tone" is mostly your impression of their tone and not necessarily the tone they're actually trying to convey.  Therefore, it's always best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are taking the time to talk to you to facilitate conversation and not to deliberately offend you.

Yeah, probably.  I just have too much on my plate right now and I was hoping for a more casual discussion, not one filled with so much defensiveness.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Oh I can think of multiple occasions where Left-leaning media does this sort of thing.  That said, I find it far more on the Right-leaning media these days.  Some here seem to assume I am some far left whack job, which I assure you I am not.  I am actually a slightly Right-leaning centrist.  But I find the liberal media outlets to more accurately report on the president than the conservative ones.  Hint: if any media outlet gives president praise than critique, it is probably overly biased.  See: Obama presidency.

I have zero affiliation with either "Left-leaning" or "Right-leaning".  Remember, FOX is Paul Ryan.

I call Fake News when I see it - wherever it is found.

Now, that's funny that you think the liberal media outlets are more accurate on their reporting of Trump.  That, to me, means you are captive to confirmation bias.  Now let me ask you... how long did the liberal media outlets run with the Russian Collusion story?

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Yeah, probably.  I just have too much on my plate right now and I was hoping for a more casual discussion, not one filled with so much defensiveness.

Not sure why defensiveness is bad.  You made assertions, we countered your assertions, now it's your turn to defend your assertions... that's all there is to it.  

Edited June 19, 2020 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And I posit... over and over... that if you've had Hillary Clinton as POTUS, not only will the USA have suffered, THE WORLD would have suffered more, especially after saddling us with 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Dubya, and 8 years of Obama.  Now, you're getting ready to saddle us with BIDEN.... ugh!

There's a reason God calls imperfect people to rule at certain times in each dispensation.

 

The trap here is believing that it was, or is, an either-or choice.  That God won’t or can’t save a people that turn to Him.  That there will never be a price to be paid when a people lusts for the power of a Saul, the virility of a David, and the wealth of a Solomon over the wisdom and meekness and godliness of a Samuel.

We should beware of suggesting that ascending to the Presidency indicates divine favor.  Else, we may have some real backpeddling to do come January.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

1 minute ago, psych_murse said:

I was hoping for a more casual discussion, not one filled with so much defensiveness.

My friend, there has been plenty of defensiveness on this thread. Almost all of it has come from you. You need to drop the defensiveness and engage in conversation. People here will be far more impressed with your ability to discuss topics and bring up relevant facts and observations than they will be with your status as a nurse/sociologist.

But having said that, I asked you two very honest questions about "flatten the curve" that your nursing/sociological background might actually be relevant in answering. I would be interested to read what you have to say on that topic.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

It was good chatting with you all!  Many blessings!

Well, that was short... I was hoping you'd stay for at least page 7... you just might come out of it wearing a MAGA hat.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trap here is believing that it was, or is, an either-or choice.    

It WAS an either-or choice.

 

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

  That God won’t or can’t save a people that turn to Him.  That there will never be a price to be paid when a people lusts for the power of a Saul, the virility of a David, and the wealth of a Solomon over the wisdom and meekness and godliness of a Samuel.

We should beware of suggesting that ascending to the Presidency indicates divine favor.  Else, we may have some real backpeddling to do come January.

So... there was this guy shipwrecked on an island begging God to save him... so a fisherman came...

[Carborendum]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

My friend, there has been plenty of defensiveness on this thread. Almost all of it has come from you. You need to drop the defensiveness and engage in conversation. People here will be far more impressed with your ability to discuss topics and bring up relevant facts and observations than they will be with your status as a nurse/sociologist.

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Not sure why defensiveness is bad.  You made assertions, we countered your assertions, now it's your turn to defend your assertions... that's all there is to it.  

The thing to understand here is that she was not here to "discuss" anything.  She was here to air her grievances unfettered and unchallenged. 

When she found that she'd (gasp!) actually have to defend her position with more than just blanket statements, rhetoric, and straw men, her only explanation for such a response was that we must simply be too blinded by the Orange Man's bluster to hear the unfettered truth as it dripped from her golden tongue.

In other words:  We're just a bunch of mindless followers.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Carborendum

[Vort]

Just now, Carborendum said:

The thing to understand here is that she was not here to "discuss" anything.  She was here to air her grievances unfettered and unchallenged. 

When she found that she'd (gasp!) actually have to defend her position with more than just blanket statements, rhetoric, and straw men, her only explanation for such a response was that we must simply be too blinded by the Orange Man's bluster to hear the unfettered truth as it dripped from her golden tongue.

I believe psych_murse is a man. Other than that, I fear you may have hit the nail squarely on the head. But we may yet be proven wrong. Let's hope.

[Carborendum]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The trap here is believing that it was, or is, an either-or choice.  That God won’t or can’t save a people that turn to Him.  That there will never be a price to be paid when a people lusts for the power of a Saul, the virility of a David, and the wealth of a Solomon over the wisdom and meekness and godliness of a Samuel.

Now, this is the first time I've come to understand your position.  And you have a great point.

I don't believe we have the choice you suggest we have.  You suggest that "God will save us."  I have no doubt that He will save us individually and, hopefully, as families.  And as far as prophecy goes, He will save us as a Church.  But to save us as a nation?  No, I don't see that happening.  Not that He wouldn't if enough prayers were said and enough hearts were turned and all that.  But I just don't see enough hearts being turned to God in this era.  I believe we're in that same mentality that Mormon found himself in when he realized that their sorrow was the sorrow of the damned.

IOW, my lack of faith is not about the Lord.  I have a lack of faith in the people of this land.  I can only hope that the Elders of Israel will save the Constitution.  But ... even that is an apocryphal prophecy.

I believe COVID and the riots and a few more things that are yet to come are like the seven plagues of Egypt.  We will have the option of turning our hearts to Him or not.  So far, the "shadows remain unaltered".

So, to me, it is only a question of either

• Praying for Armageddon to start as soon as possible so that we can get the Second Coming ASAP.
• Hanging on as long as we can until Armageddon starts on its own.

I'd vote for the latter.

Quote

We should beware of suggesting that ascending to the Presidency indicates divine favor.  Else, we may have some real backpeddling to do come January.

I certainly hope I never gave that impression about Trump.  But I can see that being interpreted from what I've said.  That was not my intent.  Perhaps I should be more clear in my position regarding why evil men can still do good.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest psych_murse]

I came here for what I hoped would be a different type of discussion.  I thoroughly expected disagreement and to be the minority point of view, and thus I tried to couch my original words carefully.  If you read my intro from two years ago, I love to debate politics and have engaged in much feistier debates.  I just didn't want that today.  It probably doesn't help that I feel tired and therefore am likely too irritable to want to engage in this sort of debate.  Furthermore, I have work to do and find myself constantly feeling this need to come here and reply to an overwhelming number of replies.  What is one or two replies to me on your parts is actually six or seven on mine.  It's hard to have a discussion when you are this vastly outnumbered and limited on time.  I shouldn't have waded into something so deep when I am as limited as I am (please see my intro, which remains accurate in all its details).

I love how frequently I was accused of making assumptions.  I guess that door only swings one way.  And I am a man.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I love how frequently I was accused of making assumptions.  I guess that door only swings one way.

How so? You were in fact making assumptions galore, so we pointed out that fact to you. It materially affected what you were saying. How is this dirty pool?

[Vort]

And for what it's worth, I am sorry you came here looking for something you didn't find. I know how it feels to want conversation and maybe a sounding board, but finding instead something else, something that ends up looking like an attack or resistance or at least a brick wall.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

How so? You were in fact making assumptions galore, so we pointed out that fact to you. It materially affected what you were saying. How is this dirty pool?

Vort, you're wasting your breath.

One pitfall of the mental health worker is that they're used to seeing the unhealthy thought patterns and behaviors of others.  They often don't turn that microscope on themselves. They look outward, not inward to see the problems.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest psych_murse]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

How so? You were in fact making assumptions galore, so we pointed out that fact to you. It materially affected what you were saying. How is this dirty pool?

You ask a question.

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Vort, you're wasting your breath.

One pitfall of the mental health worker is that they're used to seeing the unhealthy thought patterns and behaviors of others.  They often don't turn that microscope on themselves. They look outward, not inward to see the problems.

Here is a sample answer.

This is the sort of thing I'm not in the mood to put up with.  There is a lot of ignorance here for such "informed" people accusing me of bias.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

Clearly, I gave the impression, in spite of my multiple efforts at being cautious, that I was saying everyone who supported Trump was following his personality cult, as you say.  I appreciate the better tone.  I don't much care for the atmosphere at this place thus far.

35 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

thus I tried to couch my original words carefully.  If you read my intro from two years ago, I love to debate politics and have engaged in much feistier debates.

It seems to me that the first page you were really generalizing that if a person was supportive of Trump's politics, that they must also be supportive of his personal conduct.   That's simply not true, and really offensive to people whom are supportive of politics but not the personal conduct of Trump  -- and there are a lot of those people around, including on this forum.  That large of a misrepresenting of people and generalization. ..  It's just not a good starting point for anything respectful.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Jane_Doe