Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will Conservatives Fight Each Other for the Next Four Years?
I have no idea what will happen over the next month. It’s possible but unlikely that President Trump will be re-elected; it’s also likely that Joe Biden will fill that seat; his winning this election fills me with fear and dread.
But to me, even worse than watching an elderly man who has cognitive problems and misguided ideas become President will be watching the Conservatives at each other’s throats. I foresee those who enthusiastically support Trump holding angry grudges against those who believed that Trump could not overcome the odds or beat back the fraud. And I can imagine those who believed the odds were long will be hated by those who believed that fraud should have been uncovered and Trump should have won.
This outcome is a lose-lose proposition for Conservatives everywhere.
Why do I bring this issue up now? Because in one sense, it doesn’t matter what the results are: we could waste our energy berating each other, blaming the system, and condemning those who were on the opposite side of us.
I’m also raising this issue now because we must focus on the real potential catastrophe: Democrats may very well be in charge of the government at one level or another and their dominance could destroy our country.
Now I will admit that I’m not fond of watching people fight with each other, verbally or otherwise (although I did enjoy the original Karate Kid). But the stakes are too high for us to get sidetracked and fall into Republican reticence of being Mr. Nice Guys or giving up the farm. Instead of fighting with each other over the past, let’s try the following:
- Make sure one way or another that a highly credible commission is established to study the results of the election, identify the fraud that occurred, find the mismanagement that was pervasive, and identify solutions. This effort will require identifying which steps should be proposed for the federal government to oversee, and which should be given to the states. If possible, the recommendations should include penalties for breaking or mismanaging the rules. The committee should be bipartisan and should preferably include people who are no longer in government, but have credibility on both sides of the aisle.
- Stop crying over spilled milk, no matter who wins. It will have been done. Arguing amongst ourselves is just another kind of distraction and will stall any progress on the part of Republicans. I frankly don’t care if you feel there was massive fraud or if you believe there was fraud, but not enough to make a difference. (I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.) It’s history. Finished. Done.
- Let’s figure out the next steps for the Republicans that go beyond fighting the Democrats or re-litigating the election. We need to revamp totally the principles of Conservatism. We need to give up on old hopes that will be lost for the future, such as small government. We need to figure out how to educate people about US history and its goals in moving forward. We need to determine how to best engage people in America and build enthusiasm for 2024.
- We must explore the psychological impact of this election and be honest about its effect on ourselves and the people. Each of us should take a good hard look at ourselves and ask what really motivates our antagonism toward our colleagues. I learned a good lesson that is almost always true when it comes to human motivation. We become angry when two aspects of our psyche are challenged: being right and looking good. That means when someone accuses us of being wrong, we defend ourselves, insisting that we are right. It doesn’t matter whether we are “really” right or not; we must protect ourselves from those who question us. “Looking good” describes those characteristics that we value because we think they make us “look good”; they are what you value about yourself, not necessarily what someone else appreciates about us. That means when a person violates your important beliefs about your looking good—being smart, being right, being ethical, being educated—you will have a strong negative reaction and even fight back. I know intimately the limitations of these reactions!
Once we realize that our reactions to others’ challenging us are based on our irrational fears of being discounted, it’s much easier to disregard what they say about us. For example, some men like to tell me I’m reacting “emotionally” to something. Most women hate to be told that; I love it because I can respond by saying, “You’re right! I am emotional. But I’m also smart and knowledgeable.” That usually stops the attack.
* * * * *
My hope for all of us is that we don’t move into the next four years with a chip on our shoulders. Let’s not attack each other; let’s not spend our time in useless arguments. Instead, let’s transform our anger into passion; our concerns into dedication for America; our frustration into a laser-sharp focus. Let’s work together. Let’s help each other.
Let’s set the example of what it means to be proud Americans.
Published in Politics
It’s long past time for one. Should have happened years ago.
I think it would have its drawbacks. Ricochet shouldn’t be an ideological safe space, should it?
It also shouldn’t be a place where one or two people repeat the same nonsense over and over multiple times in every thread.
But it is. It’s made some threads unreadable, because you have to skip over pages and pages of garbage to get to the actual conversations. An ignore feature would weed out the skippable stuff.
“Safe space” is a loaded wording. But I know that even among right-leaning sites, the left-leaning venom is prohibitive to me, and I just can’t take the nastiness. Ricochet (probably as a result of a nominal membership fee) is the least odious place to converse; and yes, it’s preferable to have a place of more or less like-minded and respectful conversations, exchanging ideas and learning, rather than the constant vituperative climate of irrational thrust and dodge leftist commentary. At least we get no anti-Semitic comments and a minimum of quite explicit references self-pleasuring and intellectual excrement that I find on other sites.
It’s not the ideas. It’s huge volumes of posts, making the same attack points over and over.
They are easier to ignore if they keep the comments short. Jejune arguments aren’t made less so by being wrapped in 5+ paragraphs.
If 70% of New Yorkers support same sex marriage and 70% of Tennesseans oppose it, it’s likely that the average of support is 60%. The court should have left it to the states.
AND:
I think you are missing the point. Every person sets their own ignore list. If I am a jerk, you can block me. If we are completely opposed politically to the point it’s not going anywhere, you can block me. Every person needs to be blocked individually.
Is TV an ideological safe space if I don’t watch MSNBC?
This is aimed at me among others, I’m sure.
During Trump War I in 2016 I’d post a couple comments each on many posts knowing that there was a deep bench of fellow Nevers to pick up the slack.
In Trump War II, I pick and choose posts to engage with but stay at it once I’m committed. That’s because most like minded members have left or been converted, so it’s up to me and a couple others to hold up that side of the argument.
If it were otherwise the political posts would be nothing but the overwhelming Trump majority swarming us and doing victory dances everytime we failed to respond to their arguments
Those calling for an ignore button want the community but not the conversation. “Safe space” is the term.
I agree. But Anthony Kennedy thought differently and the 4 liberal justices predictably voted their political preferences rather than stick to the Constitution.
I’m shocked!
I find that trying to limit my responses to a single 500 word (or less) post forces me to think through my arguments and how to present them as clearly as I can. More editing effort but hopefully a better product. (Not always.) Perhaps an addition to the CoC?
I see your point, but I could also block you if I just didn’t like your opinion. It’s a poorer (and more incoherent?) conversation if some guests at the dinner party can be heard by some of the other guests but not by all of them.
That’s generally how a dinner party works, though.
Not that I go to dinner parties.
But you certainly don’t all stand in a big circle and talk at once. And if one person is monopolizing the conversation, the party ends quickly with a lot of annoyed people.
What amendments to the CoC are you thinking about? To what effect?
I personally don’t favor any more editing or any additional strictures on conversation. Even the posts that I find abusive are worth something to the one posting them. I think that individually blocking the original poster is perhaps worthwhile for those of us ON BOTH SIDES who habitually don’t tolerate well and don’t respond to certain others whose comments they routinely find to be objectionable. This won’t stop the majority of the argumentation, but it will at least give some members a degree of relief.
As far as I’ve noticed, you haven’t been spamming your arguments outside of threads that you started; your position that Biden and everything he promotes or empowers is somehow better than anything Trump has done or said as President might not be a particularly welcome perspective (there is a reason most former Trump-haters, like myself, have ‘converted’), but your posts don’t take up half or more of the number or volume of posts in most of the contentious debates in which you participate.
I think Claire summed it up best with her general exhortation to keep it brief. Any fool can yammer on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Claire’s a modernist, I think. I’ll take Edward Gibbon over Hemmingway any day.
You are not one of the serious abusers. Your arguments aren’t any more persuasive, but they are short.
I have blocked of least 1,000 people. Twitter is still a cesspool and it is too much trouble to search and unblock fools,
Discord servers allow for some flexibility in terms of blocking and banning commenters.
Speaking of soft censorship; that is, individually blocking individual commenters, this just in: Conservative Treehouse has been deplatformed by wordpress over content.
***
From Coservative Treehouse:
Most CTH readers are likely aware of the term “deplatforming.” Unfortunately, the big tech control mechanism to shut down speech & assembly has now arrived on our doorstep.
One week after the 2020 presidential election, The Conservative Treehouse received the following notification:
But no bigger, right Gary?
Along the lines of:
Don’t circumvent word limits by using multiple posts. Brevity is the soul of wit.
and
It’s a courtesy to quote what you’re responding to – if it isn’t the whole exchange don’t quote the whole exchange. Again, it’s a courtesy to your fellow guests in terms of keeping things easy to read.
I’ve got about three dozen people blocked on Facebook.
Good fences make good neighbors.
This isn’t facebook, Drew. In fact, it’s intentions and priniciples are very different.
I’ve now communicated with Administration, and as you can well imagine, this is not the first, nor will it probably be the last, time they’ve been asked about blocking commenters. In the meantime, I’ve been giving the situation a lot of thought, and I’m going to repeat some of my previous thoughts and add some new ones, for those who want to block people, and for those people they wish to block. (I’m also going to refer to a couple of suggestions from @zafar that he most recently wrote):
To those complaining:
You are frequenting a place that many different kinds of people visit. For example, you don’t get to decide what food a restaurant offers, how they design their menus, the prices they set or anything else. It is, in fact, an owner’s restaurant, and he wants to please you, but he wants to please a great diverse group of people.
A better explanation is one of the most important principles we all stand for: free speech. Free speech does not mean speech you like or agree with or even understand. And it must meet a standard, but you don’t get to set your own standards. That means when you don’t like a commenter, skip over him. (I’ll address this more below.) Ignore them. The more you engage, the more they will comment. It’s simple math.
To those who like to push other people’s buttons:
I believe that most of you in this group just want to taunt others; you’ve made your points innumerable times over a long period, and anyone who has been on Ricochet knows who you are and what you think. It’s like the child who believes any kind of attention is good attention, even if people despise you.
So if you really want to be appreciated at all, I would piggyback on what Zafar said:
This is Ricochet, folks, the site for conservative and civil conversation. Each of us may define conservatism differently, but that’s how we roll.