[zk]

Putting a house on the market and seeing what it will sell for is a more accurate way to appraise the value of a house than having an appraiser appraise it. He’s already had it appraised by the market, and it’s not worth the original asking price. At least not during the time it was on the market. It’s possible that he thinks a spring bounce or other change in the market will increase the value of his house. But for him to hope that a change in the market will increase the value from below his original asking price to above it seems, to put it nicely, optimistic.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]ZK, you’re a good man full of compassion.

I am more practical. I feel that compassion is best spent on people who deserve it.

When people have strong beliefs, you’re wasting your time on them. I feel that right wingers should be treated in a practical, rational manner devoid of compassion. I treat right wingers like bad tenants: evicted! or you’re fired!. Not my job to understand their dysfunction. There are plenty of good tenants to replace them.

You didn’t push back on your friend. You tried to counter his arguments with reason; and that puts you in an assymetrical inferior position. You said that he calls liberals “snowflakes, unpatriotic, etc…”. What about if you called him similar names?

Learn from Trump. If someone hits you, hit back twice as hard. The Trump or Kim Jung Un theory.

ZK, you’re a good person. I admire you. Just know that you’re in an asymmetrical relationship and you’re turning the other cheek all the time.[/quote]

If your position is, “If someone hits you, hit back twice as hard,” then I can see why you would think I’m in an asymmetrical relationship. I think that’s a foolish position and one that will inevitably result in escalating conflicts and a lack of peace, collaboration, and progress.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

ZK, question for you. Why is that friend still your golf buddy?
[/quote]
Question for you, Brian. Are you religious? If so, your beliefs are as ridiculous and ungrounded in reality as any fox viewer’s beliefs. If you’re not religious, do you eliminate all religious people as possible friends? If not, why not? Virtually all religions contain beliefs at least as horrible as anything trump and fox are pushing. And to believe what those religions are teaching requires just as much ignorance of reality and susceptibility to brainwashing as believing what fox and trump say. So what’s the difference?

To answer your question, he’s still my friend because he’s a good person and I like him. He has fallen hard for fox propaganda. That doesn’t make him a bad person deep inside. It makes him a human being who is susceptible, like almost all human beings, to emotional manipulation. Susceptible to believing what he wants to believe instead of what the evidence shows.

[quote=FlyerInHi]
What do you think would happen if, in conversations with your friend, you dished out the same shit about the right wing? Actually, you don’t need to go that far — just based on facts, show him what morons his kinds are.
I think liberals are part of the problem because we are too tolerant of the ranting from the right. We enable them. Throw the shit back and they will see quickly how it feels.
[/quote]
What makes you think I didn’t throw any shit back? I did. And hard. I pointed out a couple of his hypocrisies, told him that I didn’t think and feel how fox told him I feel, told him that fox was lying to him, told him he should open his mind to the possibility that fox is nothing but propaganda, told him that the only reason he thinks NYT and WaPo are fake news is that fox told him to think that. Etcetera.

And this isn’t the first time we’ve had this conversation, so to answer your question about what would happen if I threw back, well, we’d still be friends and we’d be out there playing golf again.

What I should have done, and probably would have if I hadn’t had a couple beers, is told him that we both want the same things. That we’re friends and countrymen and fellow human beings, and that we really do want the same things. And then gone on to ask him some questions. Which, done skillfully enough, can occasionally get someone to maybe start pondering whether they’ve made some bad assumptions (not that I’m skillful at it, but it would’ve been better than just telling him that he’s brainwashed, which is basically what I did).

[quote=FlyerInHi]

I used to be nice, but I now have no hesitation in writing off “friends” since Trump’s election. The deplorables have revealed themselves for who they really are. Let’s not pass it off as the fault of the right wing media.
[/quote]
I don’t think you can lump all of them together like that. Some of them have bad hearts and some of them are just brainwashed. Just like religious people. Some christians take leviticus and turn it into their own personal crusade, and others take the teachings of Christ and actually live by them. And most (but not all) christians, just like most (but not all) of those conned by right-wing media, are no better nor worse of human beings than they would be if they weren’t brainwashed. Their ignorance and whatever malice that they might have are just more visible. That said, there are a few from both of those groups who get wound up and do bad things they otherwise wouldn’t do. And those people (and those whose malice is otherwise revealed) deserve to be “unfriended.” But I think maybe you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I know I would be if I didn’t hang around this guy any more.

And I do blame the right-wing media. As I’ve said over and over, humans are susceptible to emotional manipulation and brainwashing. Con men throughout human existence have taken advantage of that susceptibility. Right-wing media are nothing but con men, taking advantage of the particular fears, angers, and desires that exist in a large segment of America’s population right now.

Con men and rubes. That’s where the right is at right now. It’s where a lot of humanity is and always has been. You can place all the blame on the rubes if you want. But you seem to be ignoring human nature and ignoring the ice-cold and immensely selfish con men who are fleecing your fellow humans.

[quote=FlyerInHi]

If you friend were as intelligent as you say, he wouldn’t fall for the Fox propaganda.
[/quote]
You couldn’t be more wrong about that. Intelligence (of the standard variety) has very little to do with susceptibility to a con. Take Ben Stein, for example. Here’s a man who was valedictorian of his class at Yale Law School. That doesn’t happen without a very powerful intellect. Yet he seems to believe in young-earth creationism. People believe what they want to believe. And con men are great at getting people to want to believe what they (the con men) want them to believe.

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Zk, by allowing the assymetrical relationship, you are enabling the behavior.
[/quote]

The friendship would only be asymmetrical if your assumptions about it were true (which, as you can see, they’re not). As I said, I did tell him that I thought he’d been manipulated, that fox was propaganda, that if he wanted the truth, he needed to read some reliable reporting. As I said before, what I should’ve done was find some common ground and led him through the process that got him to his current thinking with his own words (via questions). Maybe next time.

[quote=FlyerInHi]

I have written off several “friends” because they could not handle the pushback. Not my fault.
[/quote]
If those friends have malice in their hearts, then good for you. If not, I think you made a mistake.

[zk]

I guess I should’ve noticed the extent of this before.

I played golf with a couple friends yesterday. One of them is a consumer of right-wing media. In the bar afterwards, over a couple beers, he started telling me how I feel about politics and about society and culture and liberals and conservatives. Every single thing that he said, both about how I feel and in general, was straight out of the fox playbook.

I hadn’t understood just what a huge part of right-wing propaganda is disinformation about the viewpoints of those who aren’t brainwashed like they are. It’s harder to argue with well-reasoned positions, so fox sets up some straw men instead. A tactic as old as the hills, I know. And I was aware that fox has been doing this for decades. I just didn’t notice how much until now.

I had noticed that right-wingers used the same insults: snowflake, SJW, cuck, etc. And I knew they generally considered those not on their side to be weak, unpatriotic, etc. And I knew they got those insults and ideas from their echo chamber. But I didn’t realize that they have assigned viewpoints (made-up viewpoints, of course) to the left on quite a few specific issues. We only discussed maybe half a dozen issues. But on each one, he told me what I thought and how I felt. I am extrapolating, but I would imagine that, given his perfect score of “knowing” what I felt on those issues, he’s pretty sure how I feel about a pretty high percentage of the issues.

This friend is very intelligent, and very funny. And usually quite reasonable. But there was just no way that he was ever going to believe that fox is propaganda and that WaPo and the NYT are real news. He was quite adamant – even a little emotional – about that.

I came away from the conversation even more dispirited than ever about our prospects of bringing reason back to the discussion. If a reasonable, intelligent guy like this can be so irreversibly brainwashed, so completely immune to facts, reason, evidence and logic, I don’t see how we can turn around this bamboozling of a huge swath of the country.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd]
I’m not saying that he’s any good, but do you think we’d get someone better? [/quote]

It seems impossible to me that we wouldn’t. I mean, who would be worse?

I met a dude with Down Syndrome the other day. Really nice fella. He’d be better than trump. I saw a homeless lady this morning. I think she’s an alcoholic. She’d probably be better than trump. Oprah is a fool who has her head three feet up her own ass and promotes quack doctors. She’d be terrible, but better than trump. I know a couple 7th grade kids who would be way, way, way better than trump.

Stephen Miller might be worse. Maybe. No, probably not. No, I can’t think of a single person in the United States who would be a worse president than donald trump. He’s the king shithole. He’s King Shithole. And he wants to be Dictator Shithole.

I agree that Americans’ fascination with celebrities is stupid. But I don’t think it’s terminal. I think we can find somebody worthy. We need somebody reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, wise, strong, and at least somewhat charismatic (or at least persuasive and good with people). Someone who can create and sell a positive message. Someone like Barack Obama. Are people like him really that rare? I don’t believe they are. Although that belief is fading as this country struggles to find worthy leaders.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]130k seems so low.

[/quote]

I was thinking the opposite.

First off, I don’t care that he boned a porn star while he was married and paid her to keep quiet. He’s done many horrible things that were important; this wasn’t one of them.

She, on the other hand, should be embarrassed. If I were her, I’d pay HIM to to keep quiet.

[zk]

What is this “high-yield savings account” that you speak of? I thought those were extinct. Dormant, anyway. What kind of rate are we talking about?

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]
If you believe that republicans will never vote to impeachment the president under any circumstances then he isn’t getting impeached. Impeachment requires a majority in the house to file the article of impeachment and then 2/3rds of the senate to find him guilty. [/quote]

That’s a good point. He could be impeached, but not removed, without 2/3 of the senate.

[quote=livinincali]

Trump isn’t going to win re=election at this point but Mike Pence could, or at a minimum has a better shot than Trump.

[/quote]

In my opinion, Pence doesn’t have a shot in hell. First, one of the main constituencies that would vote for him (old white people who consider themselves very christian) is mostly old and dying. Trump caught the very tail end of their power and won their vote and the votes of disaffected lower- and middle-class white people and also traditional republicans. Those disaffected lower-and middle-class white people don’t want a traditional republican like Pence. The evangelicals are losing power. The traditional republicans aren’t enough any more, in my opinion.

Maybe some of that is wishful thinking. I keep thinking the democrats are going to put up somebody with vision and charisma. Like Obama. But the best they can come up with is Hillary (who I think would’ve made a fantastic president, but wasn’t a good candidate) and Warren (who I also think would make a good president but I don’t think would be a very good candidate) and Franken (who would’ve been a great candidate and probably a good president, but who got run out of politics), and Kaine (who?) and etcetera. And without a half-decent democratic candidate, maybe you’re right. Maybe Pence does have a shot. But I think that if republicans put up somebody like Kasich and the democrats put up somebody like Warren or Kaine (and the democrats keep sucking at campaigning and at getting their message out), then the republican wins, even with the massive energy out there that hates trump and, by osmosis, many things republican.

[zk]

[quote=SK in CV]If the timing is, as you suggest, I think it’s unlikely that it will only be Trump in trouble. Trump and Pence are gone, next in line is the new speaker of the house, which would be a democrat. Republicans know that’s no good. If there is any chance of an impeachment, it will be before the next congress takes office in early 2019 so they can salvage some power.[/quote]

Interesting thought.

I’m not sure if I laid out my timeline clearly. I was thinking Mueller wouldn’t come back with anything before the elections (nor before the next congress takes office).

What if Mueller hasn’t come back with anything yet by January ’19 (entirely possible)? You’re saying you think the republicans might just go ahead and try to get him removed before that, based on what they already have (which is plenty) even before Mueller comes back with anything (for the reason you stated)?

Republicans impeaching trump certainly would be less dangerous than democrats impeaching him, as far as trump’s base exploding. Although it would be interesting to see what fox – which seems to be more pro-trump than it is pro-republican anymore – would have to say about it.

[zk]

Possible scenario:

Democrats win the house and senate in 2018.

Mueller comes back with damning enough information against trump that impeachment and removal from office are inevitable (now that the republicans, who wouldn’t impeach him if he shot someone on 5th Avenue, are out of power).

Con man don, delusional jackass that he is, still considers himself innocent. He won’t give up and is impeached and removed from office. He loudly proclaims his innocence as he’s dragged from office, and fox et al. amplify his proclamation, yelling from the top of their antennae that the whole thing was a witch hunt, and that Mueller was biased and that the evidence was fabricated, planted, and otherwise false. This, of course, convinces the rubes who constitute his base that their man got screwed and that they got screwed and that the country got screwed by satanic liberals and the deep state.

It’s important to remember who these idiots are. These yokels won in 2016, and they’re still crazy angry. Imagine their anger if their man gets forced out of office. Their savior, the man who (pretended to, and convinced them that he) really cared about them. The only man who could save the country, the only man who wasn’t beholden to “them” (the deep state, the liberal media, the rich, the donors, pick your lied-about-by-trump and sold-by-fox poison), the only man who kept them safe from terrorists and liberals and poindexters and college graduates and atheists and mainstream media.

If don does get impeached and removed, the rest of this scenario is inevitable. And then there will be blood. And that blood will be on the hands of the right-wing media.

[zk]

Here’s another way right-wing media are destroying our country:

Headline:

In battle with Mueller, Trump has a big advantage that Nixon did not

Quote that gives you the gist:

Trump will be benefiting from a very powerful and far-reaching network of media propaganda on his behalf — one that casts all these ongoing efforts to subject Trump to basic accountability as fundamentally illegitimate — that is nothing like anything Nixon had at his disposal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/12/18/in-battle-with-mueller-trump-has-a-big-advantage-that-nixon-did-not/?utm_term=.b8e0f4c48caa

[zk]

[quote=njtosd] A male friend of mine who was having trouble making partner…yelled “REALLY??” and jumped on the back of the bike 🙂 .

[/quote]

That’s hilarious. Did he ever make partner?

As for the rest of your post, you’re just talking common sense. I agree with basically all of what you say. (Although I think that while 99% of available women aren’t coworkers, that doesn’t change the fact that, if you add up each minute that you spend with an available woman, for most men somewhere between 50% and 95% of those minutes are with coworkers.)

As I said in my previous post:

[quote=zk]

While never approaching a woman regarding sex in this scenario might be a wise policy, should it really be required?
[/quote]

My problem is that we seem to have taken common sense out of it. It’s a black and white thing now. If you’re in a position of power, you can’t approach a woman in your company for sex without risking your entire career, regardless of any other circumstances.

[quote=njtosd]
Even if she’s giving this hypothetical guy “the signals” – everyone knows that work relationships rarely end up well, and problems are almost unavoidable. Why open yourself up for that?
[/quote]

Maybe to him the relationship ending up well isn’t important to him and maybe typical workplace-type post-romance problems are worth it to him. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about his career ending.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Zk, i think this is an interesting and funny article on “where the line is.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/12/08/after-trent-franks-men-worry-if-asking-subordinates-to-bear-their-child-is-still-okay/?tid=hybrid_popularity_challenger_1_na&utm_term=.df4831e41176%5B/quote%5D

Meh. A one-joke article (told a dozen different ways) that tries to both be funny and make a point, but succeeds in neither.

Kinda like an Andy Borowitz column. Take an obvious observation, state it in a snarky manner, and expect people to find it funny and insightful. Not impressed.

[zk]

[quote=zk][quote=spdrun]zk:
(1) There’s reputable research stating that women are actually MORE interested in sex than men.
[/quote]

Show me.

[/quote]

[quote=spdrun]
[crickets]
[/quote]

Uh huh. That’s what I thought.

[zk]

Thanks for the idea, bewildering. I called my tax lady and she confirmed that you can pay your April property tax this year and deduct it. She also confirmed that, in my particular situation, it will be a good idea.

In my case, it’s a good idea whether the tax plan passes or not. My situation is a bit unusual, and I’m not sure whether it would be advantageous in a lot of situations. Her take in general is to plan and pay taxes as if the tax bills will not pass. I didn’t ask, and she didn’t say, whether this was because she thinks it’s not going to pass or for some other reason.

[Author]

Posts