tallslenderguy

For those following or interested in this exchange, yesterday @tobetrained and i had a back channel about this thread. He gave me leave to add it to the thread if i chose. i've decided to do so, with a wee bit of embarrassment on my part because i did get a bit vulnerable. i'm often big on promoting openness and vulnerability as part of honest communication and connection, so i've decided to put my money where my mouth is and share the back channel exchange un edited because i think it adds to the overall picture and detail of discussions like this, stuff that often goes unsaid. i colored tobetrained text blue and mine yellow to make it easier to distinguish. tobetrained 69 Replied: 20 hours ago I apologize. I do very much appreciate our conversations. I hope we can disagree and still communicate. tallslenderguy 4,696 Replied: 19 hours ago This is really gracious. Thank you. i'm not "angry," my feelings are hurt and i feel misconstrued lol (that's an embarrassed, but honest, admission and "lol"). It particularly hurts because i do value and respect you, and consider you a person of substance. i feel like you often talk down to me, like a teacher with a child. On the other hand, i also realize that the written word can be rife with hazard, and that one can infer tone into the written word that isn't implied... or a variation of both. In the "wake up" of the question, i wrote: "Waking this thread up. We have a years worth of the Trump administration and agenda. A year ago, we had several supporters and defenders of the Trump administration, but none of them responded to this question. But my questions remain, i do want to understand, because i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group (e.g. "MAGA"), and that there is the ever present inclination (and danger?) of stereotyping... which i think we as gay guys should know better? In an effort to parse out the diverse: 1. Did you vote for Tump? 2. What were the reasons that you voted for Trump? 3. Do you believe you got what you voted for? " i see a decided difference between the way i phrased my questions and: "how can you think like this?" or, "why can't you think like me?" i may take this to a neutral party and show it to them without any kind of background and ask their read of it, to see if there is something i am missing, but it seems to me that you are inferring tone that was not there? Your response did not quote most of what i wrote, purposefully, to try and convey a sincere desire to understand. you inferred tone i did not imply. There was no intended bait. Realizing how easy it is to put tone that is not intended by the writer, i was genuinely trying to show my interest in understanding their point of view. Not on a macro level, but from individuals: "i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group...." i really don't. i was genuinely trying to parse out the individuals and their reasons. Your example of the flag over city hall in WeHo is a perfect example to me. i think that it's just as inappropriate to fly the rainbow flag over a government building as it is to place plaques of the ten commandments in court rooms. That's exactly the kind of information i am looking for. i know i do not relate to most Trump supporters. When i get answers like 'immigration from someone, it really doesn't tell me the what and why behind their choice. Or_______________. You are one of the few people who has brought up some points i agree with. For instance, Europes seeming hypocrisy over Ukraine, buying Russian oil. i made a (sincere) comment that i thought you would be a valuable representative because i think we need voices that exposes the extremes of both sides. tobetrained 69 Replied: 19 hours ago I promise, I'm not trying to talk down. I'm just hyper-analytical. You typed:"Your response did not quote most of what i wrote, purposefully, to try and convey a sincere desire to understand." But I didn't omit and copy selectively. Included in your first post were two video clips that were selected to present a certain view which would bias any responses. I equally omitted those videos from my comments for attempted brevity. Another person did something similar but with written examples -- I can't remember who. I do remember thinking at the time, 'what response are these guys going to get?' tallslenderguy 4,696 Replied: 18 hours ago i believe you. The videos i selected of Trump were not selective either, i looked for unedited speeches vs edited news clips. my selection was based on something recent (at that point) that anyone could verify as unedited Trump. I.e., i did not want to present a news clip that had been edited and either side could point to and say "bias" or "fake news." my intent was to provide an entire, unedited speech from Trump presenting his views. tobetrained 69 Replied: 17 hours ago got it. also, if you want to summarize this convo for that thread, feel free. I'll leave that particular sub-thread where it is.

Yes, what you think and feel about many of my views has been evident to me. i do not think i'm being obtuse because i do not agree with your view on some things. Here's how i read your above comment: You see and understand clearly, and you've tried repeatedly to educate me, but alas, have failed to get through to me. You state: "...being a tyrant and being a fascist are two wholly different things." Why and how do you mean? Is that one statement supposed to finally get through and i repent? i see trump as a tyrannical fascist. i see him as both. Not just based on my sole feelings or opinion. I'm not alone in seeing him as such. Do i think i can't be wrong? No. But so far, you have not convinced me otherwise. Here's a separate (from you or me) take on fascism from Britannica: "...Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation." This reads an awful lot like trump and his regime to me. He has used the military to take over Venezuela. He threatened to use the military to take over Greenland. He wants to take over Canada. He has used the military to 'police' Americans who protest against him. trump asked former defense secretary Mark Esper: “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” trump threw himself a military parade for his birthday. He 'hired' Elon Musk to change/dismantle large pieces of government agencies and programs. As i see it, the list is very long and fitting. i think the label "tyrannical fascist" fits. To me, trump is the very essence of "excessive." Hitler grabbed Austria and Czechoslovakia cause he needed them for ____________. After WW2, Stalin grabbed half of Germany, all of Poland and Czechoslovakia, and more. Two great examples of fascist and communist tyrants. trump has grabbed Venezuela, then quickly tried for Greenland, and has made no secret of his 'needing' Canada too. They all seem like birds of a feather to me. The fact that trumps style is fascism vs communism doesn't really matter to me, both systems are "extreme" in my book. Yes, of course "extremism happens on both ends of the continuum." As does tyranny. Stalin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un come to mind as examples of tyrannical extremists "collectivists--communists, socialists, etc.." And yes, of course, we do not want to swing 'extremely' in the opposite direction of trump and just get another tyrant of the opposite color. i disagree with at least some of your "thesis." i think tyrants from two extremes are holding the power of several countries that, i think, are a threat to the whole world. i think trump is one of them. i do think we might agree that a silver lining to the dark cloud of trump is he has inadvertently gotten a lot of countries and Americans engaged and looking to take more responsibility, countries and people who were not before. Where i think i disagree mostly with you is i see more people in the center territory than you do. i think what throws us who and what we include in our "center." Though it reads otherwise to me, i'm going to give you more credit than you seem to give me and take your question at face value as a question vs a thinly veiled assertion. i think the question is a good and proper one we should all continually ask ourselves. Yes, i really do want to understand people who think and feel differently than me. Which is not to say i will agree with them or stop arguing what appears a better way to me. my questions are sincere and i genuinely do try to listen and hear others. i realize i do not always succeed, that it has to be an ongoing endeavor. my purpose when i phrased those questions was an attempt to find common ground, to parse out the smaller, more individual details that bring us closer together vs only focusing on what divides us.

What i was attempting to do in that particular post was to make a point that there are different types of authority, not just focus on one definition. i think we are on the same page? Ultimately, i think it comes down to the individual attitude and approach. How one wields words and position. In that way, i think "one" can apply to anyone. Even something as obscure as an exchange between people on a BZ forum can contain examples of what i am trying to say, where one can express as fact or truth or feeling or thought. "Fact or truth," can come across as more authoritative, instructive, than expressing individual "feeling, opinion or thought" on a topic. i used religion and, often, use healthcare because they are two areas i have more experience and knowledge about. In religion, many respond to a "pastor" as a position of authority. Some religious even have special or particular garb, uniforms of a sort, that can have the effect of imbuing them with an automatic authority (with some). E.g., though two people might have and use the same exact title: "pastor," the way they utilize that title can be very different. One might assert they speak for "God," while the other more simply shares a belief. It's a vast topic, eh? Between individuals, each has their own personal cognitive and emotional response to perceived authority. Taking it back to the political/governance arena. i think there are more than "two political extremes" at play? Or, if i were to reduce it to two extremes, it would not be republican vs democrat, or conservative vs liberal. At this point i see it as fascism vs democracy. But really, i think part of what complicates this is the many individuals that result in many groups that authorities are attempting to manage. i think trump, and many of his power structure, call/ed themselves "republican" to give them broader appeal. But i think fascist better describes him/them. And by saying that, i'm not excusing any particular party of what i perceive as nefarious motive.

^^i think this nails it. ^^ Where i am coming from is likely vulnerable to triggered subjectivity lol, so please forgive where it may bleed through. my desire and goal is objectivity. i escaped a fundamentalist religious cult culture that i'd been raised in and conditioned by from birth. One of the results of my escape is a super sensitivity to authority. "Pluralism" by definition (especially when speaking about government?) is "the co-existance of two or more groups, states, principles, sources of authority" (that's the google search result/definition). Here's a more detailed explanation from Britannica: "pluralism, in political science, the view that in liberal democracies power is (or should be) dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not (or should not be) held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities." my sticking place of authority is the form it takes. Beyond arithmetic, i find it impossible to believe in absolutes... i.e., every belief involves an element of faith. The scientific approach, ideally, recognizes this is what we know now, but further research often demonstrates our knowledge was not complete, or downright wrong. The authority i'm most apt to get along with in a pluralistic setting, is the one who may argue a particular point, citing evidence, reason, etc., but who always holds some reserve doubt. The understanding and premiss for ongoing openness being that, in an infinite universe, our conclusions are not absolute? The sticking points, challenges, of pluralism arise (i think) when some consider their group to possess absolute knowledge vs belief. As an example, i'll choose religion since i'm pretty familiar with it. There are some who identify as "Christian" who live that as a belief, while the fundamentalist approach of others approach life choices convinced their basis is knowledge (absolute). They cannot be wrong, and because they cannot be wrong, they cannot truly engage in objective debate. As i see it, the issue with authoritarians like trump, those he surrounds himself with, and their 2025 agenda, is they cannot be engaged. I.e., their "authority" is not the type that is open to further learning through ongoing 'research' or debate, rather, they know the truth and their only goal is to rule and implement accordingly.

i appreciate what i perceive as the intent of this, and perhaps i can add to the point of my questions for clarification. i think that proposing "what did we do wrong" is to propose self reflection, which i will always agree with. To ask: "why did you vote for Trump," is different that asking "why do they vote this way." i think you may infer something that is not implied. It is not a question with judgement attached, it is a literal query asked with the intention of trying to find out and understand the reason/s individuals voted for Trump. i do not presume their reasons to be good or bad. Thus the follow-up question: "do you believe you got what you voted for." i believe we can gain insight into our self through self reflection, but i believe it is never a perfect process because we are all imperfect beings. So, while i think it is important to develop skills of introspection, i believe it is valuable, even vital, to look for input from others, with the understanding that they, like us, are also imperfect beings. To me, mature exchange involves mutual acknowledgment of our ability to be wrong, and a desire to see something as it is as best as we can. In that mutual pursuit of insight, i think we can help each other see and understand better. i can ask myself "what did we do wrong," but that does not mean i will see the same things that another might see. i may totally miss seeing things if all i do is ask myself. Asking those who voted for Trump: "why did you vote for Trump," is an open ended question that can be answered by them pointing out what they believed is/was wrong with Harris, for instance. Or, they may simply cite a Trump position and answer what voted for vs what they voted against. Either way, it can give us more understanding of their point of view to ask them vs just speculating on our own.

Waking this thread up. We have a years worth of the Trump administration and agenda. A year ago, we had several supporters and defenders of the Trump administration, but none of them responded to this question. But my questions remain, i do want to understand, because i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group (e.g. "MAGA"), and that there is the ever present inclination (and danger?) of stereotyping... which i think we as gay guys should know better? In an effort to parse out the diverse: 1. Did you vote for Tump? 2. What were the reasons that you voted for Trump? 3. Do you believe you got what you voted for?

bout a half hour ago. i got Him a toy, one of those hollow butt plugs that looks like a dog cock. you put it in and the knot holds it in place for the Top to be able to fuck it inside of the bottom. He's not vocal at all, i think He liked it, but didn't necessarily prefer it. About half of Tops seem to like loose and sloppy, the other half want tight? i can squeeze, but He pounds me to the point that i'm always loose and sloppy when He leaves... and He seems to like that. i cut the tip off though so if He came, His cum would still breed me :-). He pounds hard, and about half way through, it came out, so we fucked half in, half out. Both were awesome... always is.

i suspected you would take that stance re social welfare and healthcare and i think your response demonstrates the point of how different people see, and respond to, the same word differently. We all have a degree of egocentricity that convinces us we are 'right, good, etc.," and we've learned to find and group with others that grows our egocentricity to ethnocentricity. i think dissent on topics has merit, even when there is disagreement, if each can appreciate the person behind the view. We live in a world where others might have a contrary point of view. That "world" has always been, but now we all have to figure out a way to live together with tech like nuclear weapons vs earlier times when we only had rocks to throw at each other. So, to my original comments, the goals of: "peace, goodness, kindness, inclusion" are all pursued in a process of sitting down with each other and attempting to communicate and connect... come close enough to center for all concerned vs simply imposing our version of "good" on another, where the national version of that can lead to things like war, death, destruction.... i think this involves our discussion in another thread What is the Answer/s where you asked (and later modified) "Do you believe in the individual or the collective." To which i responded (essentially) that i see both as reality we have to deal with. i figure "centrist" is as good as it gets, and i see it as the ideal goal of democracy. Though, from where i sit, "center" will be fluid and different because of our individuality, while collectively we might come to a more centrist, 'inclusive' place to work from.

lol, and the discussion goes on, eh? But even in your simplified version, i appreciate your response, it helps give me more of a balanced read of where you are coming from. i think you'd make a good representative. Would you agree the word "altruism" can also be "highly subjective?" E.g., some would argue that any form of government sponsored social welfare is a form of "political altruism," while others would argue stuff like healthcare is a "right." Wandering around BZ we see individual, subjective definitions of "Top, bottom, versatile." my point being that subjectivity is part of the mix that we have to deal with, even in governance? An observation often attributed to Lincoln (and the origin probably just as often disputed): "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time." It seems to me that democracy can be the process of compromised consensus? Where even though my idea of Top and another guys idea of top are different, but we find enough common ground to fuck.

i do understand and was aware of all of your points prior to your listing them. There are indeed flaws in everything, and you make valid points. i'd be interested to know how you think society and government should be done? Or you may wish to correct that and rephrase it, but your posts often leave me wondering what you consider to be a right (righter?) approach to governance and why? And, as you see it, how can you or one work towards that?

Not "simple"... or easy. my comment was not intended to suggest simplicity, rather a set of ideals and goals to work towards achieving, standards to apply when making decisions, ways to measure success, or failure. i don't think i used the word "democracy?" As for fragility? i think the current US condition is as good as an example of fragile as any.

It seems to me you are making the same point, just using a different analogy. Senators, judges, congresspeople, etc., are not "puppets" or "water," they are human beings that can choose at any given moment to do the right or wrong thing. Much can be done, and needs to be done, with election reform, but people can decide to change at any given moment. i do think there are honest people who want to do the right thing (i'm not talking party affiliation here). i do think it's possible to have honest and sincere representation. Of course, all people are flawed, and we can always find the flaws. i think MTG is a good example. Many of those who do not agree with her politics, still applauded her speaking up against trump and what he's doing... and she could easily be identified as one of his former "puppets." But she really was never a puppet, she was complicit and then decided (for whatever reasons) to not be complicit anymore. One think i am hopeful about the current mess is that 'we the people' will be more awake and engaged in our government. At the end of the day, i believe it is we the people who will decide on whether our government represents us or the would be puppeteers.

i agree that much of evil power and influence flies below the radar, but all of these "puppets" have volition, they are not simple wooden marionettes with no will of their own... they are complicit participants.

Power, wealth and strength can be used to promote peace, goodness, kindness, inclusion, and promote prosperity for all. It can also be used to promote war, destruction, greed, self centeredness, hate, and robbing others of freedom. The world does not need more Putins, Xi Jinping's, Kim Jong Un's or Trumps. Bullies are not "strong men." They are weak and immature and we the people can either enable them or speak out and vote against them. We cannot afford to be exhausted by the onslaught of evil.

wow... left about 10 minutes ago. Had been 4 days since He last bred me, so He just pounded me for an hour and i am completely tenderized.