When Conspiracists Psychoanalyze

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mendel

Senior Member.
I understand "republic" to be government by the governed. this includes the original Roman res publica which was not any form of democracy.

and I expect a Western-style democracy to have 3 independent branches (legislative, executive, judicial), with at minimum the legislative being elected by the people, and to implement minority protections as set down in the UDHR or similar.

to say that the US are not a democracy is an indictment, not a boast
 

Woolery

Banned
Banned
If you can't decipher articulate expression, broaden your vocabulary rather than teach everyone to be the same -- colloquial, fuzzy and rude.
For those who were asking me what I meant about the intolerance of skepticism see above.

To the majority of the world who either struggled with formal schooling or weren't granted access to it at all, this is an elitist middle finger. And rocket fuel for populism.

And this got like 3 up votes?

Colloquial speech is not wrong. It’s honest, heartfelt and evocative. When I really want to express myself, it’s my go to.

I’m so tired of “highly educated” people demanding of us “less educated” people to practice proper table manners before we think about opening our mouths and describing what we see or asking for what we need.
 
Last edited:

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
For those who were asking me what I meant about the intolerance of skepticism see above.

To the majority of the world who either struggled with formal schooling or weren't granted access to it at all, this is an elitist middle finger. And rocket fuel for populism.

And this got like 3 up votes?

Colloquial speech is not wrong. It’s honest, heartfelt and evocative. When I really want to express myself, it’s my go to.

I’m so tired of “highly educated” people demanding of us “less educated” people to practice proper table manners before we think about opening our mouths and describing what we see or asking for what we need.
I agree wholeheartedly. Seven years ago, I was a lurker on this forum. Everyone used primarily everyday language, but at times the subject matter-specific language was absolutely inaccessible and I was convinced I wasn't smart enough to bother talking here. Colloquialisms brought me into this community and convinced me that I had a place here.

I am currently studying language and language disorders, and the amount of people who are unable to access university-level language would surprise most. Be it from socioeconomic/linguistic/dialectic/cultural diffferences, language and cognitive disorders, or the simple fact that university-level language isn't needed for the vast majority of fields. This is the kind of thinking that makes people think that speakers of African American Vernacular English (what was once known as Ebonics) use inaccurate or incorrect language, when really their dialect follows specific rules, just like General American English (the kind of English that news anchors use). There's a reason that news stories are written at a 6th-grade level; simple language is easy to digest.

I could go on.

TLDR: there's nothing wrong with casual language, not everybody can "broaden their vocabulary," and placing emphasis on eloquent language alienates others
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
TLDR: there's nothing wrong with casual language, not everybody can "broaden their vocabulary," and placing emphasis on eloquent language alienates others
I agree, but I think the issue here is one person stubbornly insisting upon their own non-standard definition for a word. It isn't eloquence that is the objective. It's trying to understand each other, which becomes difficult unless words have an agreed-upon meaning.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I agree wholeheartedly.
So do I BUT some members probably see me as being on the dark side.

Here is what has been a challenge to me for the 15 years I"ve been active in online debate.
... or the simple fact that university-level language isn't needed for the vast majority of fields.
True enough EXCEPT there are two issues viz:
(1) Level of language; and
(2) Level of complexity of the topic issue.

My own main focus in discusion has been explaining the forensic physics of the collapses of the WTC Towers. My stated primary goal for 15 years has been to use whatever level of professional engineering and training expertise I have to help those who are not as familiar with engineering applied physics. I claim that the explanations can be given in both language level and concepts that a high school student should understand. But it is inefficient to start discussions at that level and risks appearing patronising if I start too low. It takes several posts to develop familiarity with another person if they are new to the discussion, until understanding is reached as to a mutually accessible level of both language and concepts. With a person who does want to learn it still takes a number of post>response interactions to even outline the basic technical facts. And, yes, I will always be at risk of assuming the other person understands what to me is bleeding obvious.

It is relatively easy to use colloquial language to discuss an engineering technical subject. But the simpler language of itself does not reduce the complexity of the topic.

And there is an additional complexity of discussion process if the person is an "opponent" - who is committed to disagreeing. Be it 9/11 Truther, anti-vaxer, Apollo landing denier et simile. And I wont even mention politics or religion.
TLDR: there's nothing wrong with casual language, not everybody can "broaden their vocabulary," and placing emphasis on eloquent language alienates others
Agreed. Tho discussing complex topics raises difficulties other than linguistic ones.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I agree, but I think the issue here is one person stubbornly insisting upon their own non-standard definition for a word.
Not just one. Several members were - let's say "having difficulties".
It isn't eloquence that is the objective. It's trying to understand each other, which becomes difficult unless words have an agreed-upon meaning.
Hence my suggestion was that each of us make it explicitly clear which "meaning' we intend when we use words that have risks of ambiguity.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
no one was stubbornly insisting anything. it's an American usage which the guys proved.

International forum though. If we know people are going to understand a word we use in a way that is different to the one we intend we should probably use a different word or at least explain that it has a different meaning to the one people are used to.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
International forum though. If we know people are going to understand a word we use in a way that is different to the one we intend we should probably use a different word or at least explain that it has a different meaning to the one people are used to.
1. i explained to you what i meant by the word the minute you asked.
and 2. once you told me others dont use that word that way, i did change it.
Appreciate the correction from a global point of view.

"we are not a popular democracy, we are a representational democracy"?
edit: just saw Phil's post so "we are not a direct democracy, we are a representational democracy"

just like i stopped calling mass murderers psychos, because someone here said that was offensive to non murdering psychotics.

it's late my right brain is in charge and i dont know why people (not you) are still making a big deal out of me being reasonable and helpful. oy. night :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not just one. Several members were - let's say "having difficulties".
i cant resist (no fight intended), i still hate the fact you choose to keep calling it the "top block". :) i know it probably sounds better to a Britishish ear.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
i explained to you what i meant by the word the minute you asked.

I've re-read those posts several times and I don't think that's true.

once you told me others don't use that word that way, i did change it.

That's also confusing - when I wrote:

I guess the issue is that the US has their own [localised] definition of the word republic [different to others'] beyond "not a monarchy" and neither Deirdre nor I were aware of that until today:

You wrote:

Not sure what gave you the impression i didn't know that

Which I took to mean you were claiming that you already knew you were using the word 'republic' differently to how I would understand it, despite appearances to the contrary.

But now you're saying it was me that told you others defined it differently.
 

econ41

Senior Member
i cant resist (no fight intended), i still hate the fact you choose to keep calling it the "top block". :) i know it probably sounds better to a Britishish ear.
OK. ;) Do you want me to use shorthand? Something like "The top group of storeys which remained intact through the initiation stage and in no way dropped like a box despite the claims of a well known architect"...

OR we could use an acronym: "TGOSNWAB" :rolleyes:

(Jokes aside:
(1) What do you suggest; AND
(2) How do we get a majority of both writers and debunkers to change? )
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
noone was stubbornly insisting anything. it's an american usage which the guys proved.
I'm an American, and I've never used it that way. It's not "an American usage" in general, but then, I guess I don't hang out in your "neck of the woods".
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I'm an American, and I've never used it that way. It's not "an American usage" in general, but then, I guess I don't hang out in your "neck of the woods".

My beef was with her often trying to school others on what America and Americans are all about when even an idiot on MB can see how many Americans disagree with her and with each other. No country is a monolith.

And if we non-Americans do not accept her authority on all things American since she's one, then our views can be summarily dismissed because we're outsiders.

Some of my closest lifelong friends are Americans as well as members of my extended family. Many of my best and brightest colleagues have been American working in the DOD, State Department and the USAID. Some have worked at the White House as aides. I've travelled somewhat extensively in the US, both for business and pleasure. And I've been an avid follower of American scholars, think tanks, news and entertainment ever since early teens.

Why the resume? Not because I think I'm an expert on America by even a long shot. But when I need to ask a 'real' American about life in America, I do not need to come to a niche internet forum and ask an anonymous internet warrior posing as an expert on America using their claimed citizenship as a CV. I do not need to uncritically rely on their authority and replace the observations I can get in two seconds from real Americans I really trust and know in person with theirs.

But neither should I disrespect their right to share their views. I will always listen and give the benefit of the doubt irrespective of anyone's credentials. I've seen only too many times that sometimes it's the ones with the least formal or celebrated credentials who offer the brightest views.

But if I see stubborn insistence or immature antics, I will continue to call it out, and expect others to do the same with me since I know I'm far from perfect.
 

econ41

Senior Member
My beef was with her often trying to school others on what America and Americans are all about when even an idiot on MB can see how many Americans disagree with her and with each other. No country is a monolith.

And if we non-Americans do not accept her authority on all things American since she's one, then our views can be summarily dismissed because we're outsiders.

Some of my closest lifelong friends are Americans as well as members of my extended family. Many of my best and brightest colleagues have been American working in the DOD, State Department and the USAID. Some have worked at the White House as aides. I've travelled somewhat extensively in the US, both for business and pleasure. And I've been an avid follower of American scholars, think tanks, news and entertainment ever since early teens.
The presumption that "foreigners" can't understand US policy and political issues is naive at best. I have even explained why I have some understanding of US constitutional matters and related administrative issues such as elections.
I've seen only too many times that sometimes it's the ones with the least formal or celebrated credentials who offer the brightest views.
In my favoured topic area, I have many times made an observation along this line: 'The test of any claim is "Is it True". And, if a layperson makes a true claim > it is true. If a multiple PhD academic makes a false claim > it is false.'
But if I see stubborn insistence or immature antics, I will continue to call it out, and expect others to do the same with me since I know I'm far from perfect.
I'm accustomed to posting on other media channels which are not as restrained and courteous as this forum. ( Recent examples notwithstanding. ;) )

I've long followed personal SOP's of ignoring insults and snide comments which have zero "on-topic" content. And a nominal "two posts rule" - if some person goes more than two posts with no topic content and only snide or personal comments >> I simply cease interaction. Some of the strong feelings exposed recently do not sink to the depths we see on other mediums. (You look - I'll point >> ;) I've been "slumming" on FBook Flat Earth... :eek:)

The issues at the core of contention here have been clearly explained far more than two times. I would prefer if all parties "back off" and discuss the topic... but I'm a wishful thinking optimist. AND, where the confusion/contention is over ambiguous use of terminology I tend to persist in pedantic explainer mode. It would be better if those who are digging themselves into holes would follow the aphorism and "stop digging".

And, if using ambiguous terminology, specify which meaning you are using.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I've long followed personal SOP's of ignoring insults and snide comments which have zero "on-topic" content. And a nominal "two posts rule" - if some person goes more than two posts with no topic content and only snide or personal comments >> I simply cease interaction.

A wise SOP indeed which works in most situations. You're also a more patient man than yours truly. :) But your SOP doesn't work in rare cases. Namely, when your silence and ignoring itself emboldens the snide commenter looking for a power trip (often under the guise of policing on MB rules) to derail thread after thread into metadiscussions on a 'proper way of posting' while the (sometimes significant) effort you put into substantive commentary ends up entirely ignored.

It almost feels as if these 'platform bullies' are very lonely and resentful people in real life and therefore have this sad compulsive need for power tripping in these fringe cyber corners in the absence of a place in the real world to feel important.

The issues at the core of contention here have been clearly explained far more than two times. I would prefer if all parties "back off" and discuss the topic... but I'm a wishful thinking optimist.

My above point on your wise SOP unwittingly enabling 'derails' by the bullies, revisited. That's why you wiser lot also need a few pitbulls on your side to bark and bite on rare occasions whilst this pitbull needs to continue practicing your patience on most.
 

econ41

Senior Member
A wise SOP indeed which works in most situations. You're also a more patient man than yours truly. :)
I'm less patient now than I was 2007-8-9 to about 15. (BTW back then I was debating/explaining WTC 9/11 physics AND moderating debate of US Constitutional issues. California and Prop 8 one of the hot issues. That is what motivated me to read up on US Constitutional law and its evolution.
But your SOP doesn't work in rare cases.
It sort of fails most times on less disciplined forums - because making no comment requires those you need to have onside to realise that it is an active "no comment". So to a lot of people "no comment" looks like "run away".
Namely, when your silence and ignoring itself emboldens the snide commenter looking for a power trip (often under the guise of policing on MB rules) to derail thread after thread into metadiscussions on a 'proper way of posting' while the (sometimes significant) effort you put into substantive commentary ends up entirely ignored.
Agreed. I also have reservations about some aspects of how the rules apply. But "them's the rules". There is another thread with a discussion on those matters. I've made a couple of suggestions - twice each - got ignored. So it isn't even on the agenda even if this place was a democracy.
It almost feels as if these 'platform bullies' are very lonely and resentful people in real life and therefore have this sad compulsive need for power tripping in these fringe cyber corners in the absence of a place in the real world to feel important.
Much milder here than elsewhere but the same issues of principle and psychology.
My above point on your wise SOP unwittingly enabling 'derails' by the bullies, revisited. That's why you wiser lot also need a few pitbulls on your side to bark and bite on rare occasions whilst this pitbull needs to continue practicing your patience on most.
IO - so a "meta process" observation. Provided there are enough "pit bulls" I can play "nice guy"?? PROVIDED it doesn't give the impression that I'm not aware of the group dynamics and related tensions.
 

Mythic Suns

Member
i cant resist (no fight intended), i still hate the fact you choose to keep calling it the "top block". :) i know it probably sounds better to a Britishish ear.
To my 100% British ear it sounds like either a phrase to describe the ultimate cock block or a plumbing job that requires a very big plunger.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I'm less patient now than I was 2007-8-9 to about 15.

And I'm more. Maybe in ten years we'll both meet in the 'golden middle'. :p

If I'm a nuisance to many now, imagine what a terror I was back in the early 2000s when I had just a fraction of my current 'challenged' patience.

Much milder here than elsewhere but the same issues of principle and psychology.

I agree it's milder ostensibly. But there's more passive-aggression here which easily goes under the radar and can be prompted by just as much of a toxic attitude and 'a need to prevail' as in less moderated platforms. We have smarter bullies here but bullies nonetheless. They know they'll be out in a jiffy if they weren't smart about how to spew their venom. Part of me prefers the blatantly insolent types because they're easier for moderators to spot.
 

econ41

Senior Member
To my 100% British ear it sounds like either a phrase to describe the ultimate cock block or a plumbing job that requires a very big plunger.
I'm 11/81ths British. "Yorksha". 70/81 Aussie by residence and a bit less de-jure. Family in the plumbing game. I was mostly a water and sewerage engineer. So don't get me started on sewage jokes- Once started I cannot be deterred.

If you don't know the context - the "top block" reference is to the WTC Twin Towers 9/11 collapses. where the top part of each tower fell down and destroyed all below it. It was still in one "piece" when it started. Like this:
ArrowedROOSD.jpg
 

econ41

Senior Member
But there's more passive-aggression here which easily goes under the radar and can be prompted by just as much of a toxic attitude and 'a need to prevail' as in less moderated platforms. We have smarter bullies here but bullies nonetheless.
Fully understood - we can both read the group dynamics.
They know they'll be out in a jiffy if they weren't smart about how to spew their venom. Part of me prefers the blatantly insolent types because they're easier for moderators to spot.
I was a senior moderator on a high-grade forum back in the day. 2009-10 era. Trolling and discourtesy/PA was moderated/sanctioned. And you needed to be a good wordsmith to needle and insult whilst still being allowed to remain. "Them was the days"
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I was a senior moderator on a high-grade forum back in the day. 2009-10 era. Trolling and discourtesy/PA was moderated/sanctioned. And you needed to be a good wordsmith to needle and insult whilst still being allowed to remain. "Them was the days"

Your evident ability to, and perception in, not only reading physical but also social and psychological reality, combined with your overall patient and polite demeanor, makes you an excellent moderator I'd wager.

It's just that moderating is a thankless job and surprisingly hard work to do 'on the side' of real life.

Hence my respects to all moderators, including ours. I'm not making their job always easier either. Fully admit.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Your evident ability to, and perception in, not only reading physical but also social and psychological reality, combined with your overall patient and polite demeanor, makes you an excellent moderator I'd wager.
Thanks. Was then - wouldn't take the job on now. Self-awareness is a big factor. Even tho' we all favour our own perspective. We all - or at least most persons I see here, have blind spots. I don't and I look at least twice per day to see if I've developed any. Haven't seen one. Yet.
It's just that moderating is a thankless job and surprisingly hard work to do 'on the side' of real life.
Yes.
Hence my respects to all moderators, including ours. I'm not making their job always easier either. Fully admit.
Agreed.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Thanks. Was then - wouldn't take the job on now. Self-awareness is a big factor. Even tho' we all favour our own perspective. We all - or at least most persons I see here, have blind spots. I don't

And before anyone can jump in with a snide retort to the above along the lines of "isn't that your very own blindspot in itself" :), it's worthwhile to underscore your main point that a probing self-reflection in search of our own biases and cognitive dissonances is actually possible. Plus extremely useful and important.
 

econ41

Senior Member
And before anyone can jump in with a snide retort to the above along the lines of "isn't that your very own blindspot in itself" :), it's worthwhile to underscore your main point that a probing self-reflection in search of our own biases and cognitive dissonances is actually possible. Plus extremely useful and important.
And humour is risky. Another of my favoured tongue-in-cheek references. (It is particularly relevant in the slums of Flat Earth CT "debate".) We Aussies are alleged to "hang off the bottom of the world". (Actually, where I am, 34.5 degrees south, I'm closer to "sticking out the side" than hanging down.) But, of course, I claim that hanging upside down, increases blood flow to our brains. Which is one reason why research shows that half of Aussies are above average intelligence.

It's risky because so many don't understand fundamental maths. And I'm loath to take the risk with the alternate truism "Half of (northern hemisphere country) people are BELOW average intelligence".

I've only rarely been challenged on the "mean, median, mode" distinctions.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
And humour is risky.

And yet our little meta-convo brought us right back to the very crux of the thread's theme -- the psychology of self-reflection and how doing it properly serves almost as a panacea for all these rabbit holes whether fringe or mainstream. See what we did. See what we did. ;)

Back in post #10, owing to my own career in trying to understand radicalization and the prevention of fanaticism (understood in a broader way affecting the mainstream and not only the radicalized crazies), I wrote the following:

However, we can become ever-increasingly cognizant of our own hidden fanaticisms by putting in the hard work of exercising our capacity to self-reflect.

By fanaticism I mean a somewhat simple psychological phenomenon: Clinging strongly to an unreasonable idea owing to the emotional payoff it produces.

Each fanatic is an individual seeking a particular type of emotional payoff from a given idea. The payoff they seek is only understandable from their personal histories -- whether it be a sense of superiority (moral, intellectual or physical), a sense of being special, a sense of exclusion, a sense of power, a sense of escape from boredom and the mundane (I suspect some UFO enthusiasts), a sense of comfort, a sense of security, a sense of importance, a sense of being loved, a sense of belonging, a sense of acceptance, a sense of being normal rather than weird/deviant, you name it (including a combination these).
 

econ41

Senior Member
And yet our little meta-convo brought us right back to the very crux of the thread's theme -- the psychology of self-reflection and how doing it properly serves almost as a panacea for all these rabbit holes whether fringe or mainstream. See what we did. See what we did. ;)
Yes. A topical meta circling.

Back in post #10, owing to my own career in trying to understand radicalization and the prevention of fanaticism (understood in a broader way affecting the mainstream and not only the radicalized crazies), I wrote the following:

However, we can become ever-increasingly cognizant of our own hidden fanaticisms by putting in the hard work of exercising our capacity to self-reflect.
And remaining conscious of the risk of "fooling ourselves" - is probably best addressed by picking some reference factors which can serve as benchmarks of objectivity.
By fanaticism I mean a somewhat simple psychological phenomenon: Clinging strongly to an unreasonable idea owing to the emotional payoff it produces.
Which is the basic drive for a lot of CT "belief" or professed belief.
Each fanatic is an individual seeking a particular type of emotional payoff from a given idea. The payoff they seek is only understandable from their personal histories -- whether it be a sense of superiority (moral, intellectual or physical), a sense of being special, a sense of exclusion, a sense of power, a sense of escape from boredom and the mundane .......
Yes.
(I suspect some UFO enthusiasts),
A topic that is of little interest to me. Civil Engineer. Naturally I'm into things that are "more concrete" ;)
a sense of comfort, a sense of security, a sense of importance, a sense of being loved, a sense of belonging, a sense of acceptance, a sense of being normal rather than weird/deviant, you name it (including a combination these).
As always (??) the combination of multiple factors, each of them only vaguely defined, significantly increases the challenge facing any analysis of the whole complex.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Senior Member
As always (??) the combination of multiple factors, each of them only vaguely defined, significantly increases the challenge facing any analysis of the whole complex.

Indeed. The psychological complexity and uniqueness of each person and their personal history is the sole reason why pinning down the exact dynamics underlying each CTers convictions, or the unreasonable convictions (blind spots) amongst the mainstream commentators, is well-nigh impossible. In the end, ideally we are best-suited for the task of reflecting our selves since we have the best access to our own emotions, thoughts, motivations and experiences, provided we exercise brutal objectivity. When we don't, others can sometimes see our blind spots better than ourselves.

Whilst unable to ever fully figure out the complex and profound mystery that is 'me', self-identifying our chief blindspots at any given point in time is something that a brutally honest self-reflection is more than capable of accomplishing. And like you said, that's why it needs to be a regular exercise rather than a rare occasion of sobriety and clarity forced upon us by circumstance -- such as a loss of friendships, family relationships and the dissolution of meaningful social networks owing to our own stubbornness and unwillingness to look into the proverbial mirror.
 

Mythic Suns

Member
I'm 11/81ths British. "Yorksha". 70/81 Aussie by residence and a bit less de-jure.
I'm from Devon but my accent is more RP so you'd never guess it if you heard me speak.
Family in the plumbing game. I was mostly a water and sewerage engineer. So don't get me started on sewage jokes- Once started I cannot be deterred.
you'll be glad to know I prevented myself from replying to this quote with another blockage joke.
If you don't know the context - the "top block" reference is to the WTC Twin Towers 9/11 collapses. where the top part of each tower fell down and destroyed all below it. It was still in one "piece" when it started. Like this:
ArrowedROOSD.jpg
ah....kinda puts a downer on my top block joke but good to know either way.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
noone was stubbornly insisting anything. it's an american usage which the guys proved.

American usage from the late 1700s. A time, and a place, where the meaning of "all men are created equal" had to be amended such that some were now worth three-fifths - and that was an upgrade.

Language changes over time, in particular over mutliple centuries. Heck, it's even changed over the half century that I've been using it. Clinging to a localised eighteenth-century usage on a twenty-first century international forum does not aid communication.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Which I took to mean you were claiming that you already knew you were using the word 'republic' differently to how I would understand it, despite appearances to the contrary.

But now you're saying it was me that told you others defined it differently.
we already had that misunderstanding of your ambiguous wording conversation in private. so weird you are reiterating that false perception in public.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
My beef was with her often trying to school others on what America and Americans are all about when even an idiot on MB can see how many Americans disagree with her and with each other.
One disagrees with me. One who disagrees with everything i say.

Article:
The timeworn phrase “we’re a republic, not a democracy,” once confined to campus political debates and the nerdier corners of the political internet, has been bubbling up to mainstream politics for some time now
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
we already had that misunderstanding of your ambiguous wording conversation in private. so weird you are reiterating that false perception in public.
Perhaps it's time to stop beating that dead horse. It's adding nothing to the conversation.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Clinging to a localised eighteenth-century usage on a twenty-first century international forum does not aid communication.
I didnt cling to it. i changed it once i realized it isnt commonly used. jeez.

all these mega-intelligent, psychologically sound people jumping through hoops of gas lighting just because i used one word, not to their liking, to clarify what i meant by democracy. I certainly learned my lesson and won't try to clarify myself in the future. promise.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
we already had that misunderstanding of your ambiguous wording

My ambiguous wording? :D

(To be clear, I think if we do a vote people will say my wording has been mostly fine and yours has been ambiguous, confusing, and even peculiar.)

conversation in private

Yes, I explained again in even more straightforward language what we were talking about and you appeared to {mostly} get it and we left it at that.

so weird you are reiterating that false perception in public.

So please enlighten us: which one of these is true?

you told me others don't use that word that way
not sure what gave you the impression i didn't know [the US has its own localised definition of the word "republic" different to others']

Also:

weird you are reiterating that false perception in public.

What "false perception" am I reiterating?

I certainly learned my lesson and won't try to clarify myself in the future

Please don't do that. If anything I would say you need to clarify more. A lot more.

didnt cling to it. i changed it once i realized it isnt commonly used

Can you point to the post where you did this?

jumping through hoops of gas lighting

I hope you're not accusing me of gaslighting.

(Though being as I'm far from mega-intelligent I imagine it must be someone else. ;))
 

econ41

Senior Member
Perhaps it's time to stop beating that dead horse. It's adding nothing to the conversation.
The personal angst is not proving anything. The confusion over word meanings should be easily resolved.

"Your" US republic is a representative democracy. "Your" republic is NOT a "direct democracy". So simply define what you mean in any post. Forget who was right, who was wrong. We should all now be clear as to the confusion arising from ambiguity. Discuss the topic and try to avoid ambiguous terminology.

The "we are a republic - not a democracy" issue does go back a long way in history. But it is only meaningful if it refers to "not a direct democracy". it has always been a representative democracy. Even tho in earlier days the franchise was severely limited - not universal.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
I hope you're not accusing me of gaslighting.

I'd note here that "gaslighting" isn't just "making stuff up about what happened", it specifically refers to a continued treatment of an abuse victim by their abuser. To use such a term is an implicit accusation of abuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top