Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

Well maybe they should lead the way.

[Valmy]

So do you agree with her, Valmy?  Should the Democrats abandon civility until they win back congress?

Another thought I had: It reminds me a bit of the Republicans promising vengeance for the Kav thing. I mean...how much worse could it get? That is kind of my response to that idea. I mean wait...we have been civil this whole time?

I mean my respect for Donald Trump was less than zero from his civilian days and I have nothing but contempt for him and his administration, even if I have basic respect for the office of President. But I get the feeling my dislike and opposition to the President would be considered insufficient in many circles.

Final thought: I feel like we do better when we are using the 'Hope and Change' branding rather than the 'ALL REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST EARTH DESTROYING CORPORATE SLAVES' branding. So I just generally think it is a bad idea. If Hillary never made the 'deplorables' comment, for example, I bet she would be President now.

[garbon]

I've no energy for civility at this point. What's the point? Moral high ground doesn't seem to be worth much.

[Valmy]

I've no energy for civility at this point. What's the point? Moral high ground doesn't seem to be worth much.

Well if you do do it, it is a tactic. You cannot expect anything to be reciprocated.

[DGuller]

One of the immutable laws of nature is that sometimes you must reciprocate or die.  Tit for tat is a more robust strategy than turning the other cheek. 

Jesus should have clarified that you should turn the other cheek once.  If you get slapped again, then you kind of have to resort to a tactic that protects you from getting slapped further.  Everyone is better off if turning the other cheek works, but if early humans adopted that tactic against predatory animals, there would be no modern humans.

[Tamas]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

[Valmy]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

Oh boy. Won't that be special?

[garbon]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

Though that's somewhat of an aside as a lack of civility doesn't have to mean that.

[Tamas]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

Oh boy. Won't that be special?

I don't see any other way. Unless the elections mid-term convince me otherwise, I am fairly certain moderate progressives won't stand a chance against loudmouth snake oil salesmen. They (moderates) are just not zeitgeist.

Last several years, only success moderates can show in the developed world is Macron in France and his success IMHO was a big part in managing to sell himself as radical change, despite his "mainstream" policies.

[Tamas]

Oh don't worry. The political ciimate will eventually deliver a far-left troll to gather the anti-elite sentiment from the other side.

If we are lucky he'll be a smart person playing the fool to get elected. If not, he won't be playing it.

Though that's somewhat of an aside as a lack of civility doesn't have to mean that.

But it will. A candidate offering radical change and instant solutions can afford to be a yelling bafoon. A moderate cannot. Hence my above point.

[alfred russel]

One of the immutable laws of nature is that sometimes you must reciprocate or die.  Tit for tat is a more robust strategy than turning the other cheek. 

Jesus should have clarified that you should turn the other cheek once.  If you get slapped again, then you kind of have to resort to a tactic that protects you from getting slapped further.  Everyone is better off if turning the other cheek works, but if early humans adopted that tactic against predatory animals, there would be no modern humans.

I don't think you understood Jesus' message (at least as was conveyed in the new testament). He ended up getting crucified and he was okay with that.

[Tamas]

One of the immutable laws of nature is that sometimes you must reciprocate or die.  Tit for tat is a more robust strategy than turning the other cheek. 

Jesus should have clarified that you should turn the other cheek once.  If you get slapped again, then you kind of have to resort to a tactic that protects you from getting slapped further.  Everyone is better off if turning the other cheek works, but if early humans adopted that tactic against predatory animals, there would be no modern humans.

I don't think you understood Jesus' message (at least as was conveyed in the new testament). He ended up getting crucified and he was okay with that.

OR Christianity was his revenge.

[Valmy]

To punish the Romans I will create a religion that will function as their state ideology for the next 1,200 years 

[HVC]

To punish the Romans I will create a religion that will function as their state ideology for the next 1,200 years 

Well the romans are gone and Christianity is till here. Point Jesus.


But, yeah, I don't think Tamas quite understands the message there

[Tamas]

It was a joke.