|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
These so-called "antifa" protesters have no idea what they're getting themselves into, you poke a sleeping giant enough and it will rear its ugly head at some point
|
regressive left is about as useful as a term is sjw, libtard, paulbot or virtue signalling. If anything it indicates that people have watched too many Stefan Molyneux videos on youtube and should probably be ignored.
At this point I don't even have any clue what it's supposed to mean, that left-wingers care about minority rights and international solutions instead of following the popular nationalist fad? How is this new and why is it supposed to be bad?
|
On February 03 2017 09:04 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:50 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:48 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 08:40 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:35 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 03:59 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 10:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So this Neil Gorsuch fellow doesn't sound that bad. ... is that why nobody is discussing him?
Just some cursory reading but he sounds reasonable? The main controversy I see about him is his concurrence with this statement in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius the government has given us no persuasive reason to think
that Congress meant “person” in RFRA to mean anything other than its default
meaning in the Dictionary Act ( source) (RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act) Meaning that corporations that can demonstrate a religious objection to a government mandate are generally exempt from that mandate. Those criticisms tend to overlook his concurring opinion, in which he explains why the corporation's owners can also sue in their own capacities to block enforcement of the same rule, finessing the controversial portion of the decision. Hell, just read a few pages of his concurring opinion to see his understanding of religion and laws meant to protect freedom of conscience (imo, much neglected in modern debate) + Show Spoiler +All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for
ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.
As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg. No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.1 It is no less clear from the Greens’ uncontested allegations that Hobby Lobby and Mardel cannot comply with the mandate unless and until the Greens direct them to do so — that they are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the mandate.
And it is this fact, the Greens contend, that poses their problem. As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business.
I wanted to find a collection of funny opinions over the years from Gorsuch I saw on twitter because they reminded me of Frisbee & flatulence Scalia humor, but I can't find anymore. Re-discovered the main one I was looking for. AM vs HolmesA 13-year old boy was arrested and sent to juvenile detention for disrupting gym class with burping. The majority found that to be permissible, and Gorsuch disagreed: If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded. The spice together with humor is reminiscent of Scalia, even if that full hide-your-head-in-a-bag mystical-aphorisms-of-the-fortune-cookie can't be fully reborn. Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire") How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad. short answer: idiots. longer answer: law of large numbers: 300million+ people in a nation, there's gonna be a few really dumb things that happen. that's why there are appeals systems and such for error correction, cuz dumb things happen. haven't looked at this case at all to say, but the general rules hold. also because some people go bureaucrat follow rules to the letter, and don't make exceptions well. (whcih is not necessarily bad as a policy, cuz a lot of people aren't good at figuring out the right cases for which to make an exception, sometimes higher-ups need to be the ones to make the exception.) addendum: I haven't read the case, sometimes it's the case that when you read the actual case in detail for things like this, the situation is a lot more complicated and there's some decent reasoning behind it that gets omitted in the terse summaries people hear and complain about. From what i read, the case itself is about whether that kind of behaviour is lawful or not, the mother of the boy sued. But still, i am studying to get into education currently, and i am just baffled by the absurd incompetence of that teacher who thinks that that is a good idea of how to deal with students. I can imagine a few situations where i would call the cops on a student. But all of them involve real crimes, like beating up other students or things like that. Calling the cops because you are incapable of dealing with your class is just screaming "I am bad at my job and i have no idea what i am doing!" The law case itself isn't that interesting to me. (I didn't really get far in it because it got boring after the description of the background) I am just disgusted at that teacher. We need better people in education than that. what would you have the teacher do instead? I really hope you're not serious. How about any other method of discipline besides calling the cops?
first, these weren't outside cops that were called, it was an in-school officer that's assigned to the school. and it was the officer's decision to charge, the officer could've just taken the kid to the principal's office and let the principal deal with it.
also, how are you to stop a child who's perpetually disruptive/yelling without some level of physical force? that sounds like it might be quite difficult to do in certain cases, and with current american litigous and other standards it's simply not allowed, period.
It sounds like you're judging the case based on a limited understanding, which is missing numerous details which would change your opinion if you read them. that's why I said earlier it's important to not judge too much into these cases without reading the case file to find out what really happened, the short descriptions often omit key parts of the story.
|
danglars -> I'd still like to know what ICE says when you call them about the illegals in your building. do they come and catch some? do they disbelieve you? do they do periodic raids anyways?
do they consider it a low priority area?
|
On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else.. Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line. I find it funny how so many of you get caught up in semantics. I invited Biff to give me his critique of Milo (ie I didn't presume what his critique was), and he gave me the exact cookie-cutter response that I would have expected from just about anyone on the Left. So how is it unfair for me to lump him in with them or to otherwise point out the obvious (and this is from years of watching him post around here) that Biff is on the Left politically? And more to the point, why does the label matter when my real point is about the idea held by the group whom I'm labeling? And as to your point about my being dismissive of Biff's criticism of Milo, my response is: of course I was. Garbage in, garbage out, right?On February 03 2017 04:07 buhhy wrote:
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues. And I'll say the same thing to you. Why are you so caught up in the semantics? My categorization of people is really besides the point. It's the ideas that matter. As for the bolded/underlined comment of yours above, there's a critical difference between my categorization of people and what the Left does: I'm generally not imparting any judgment upon the other side with my categorization (I will admit that "Regressive Left" is a loaded term). Saying that someone is part of "the Left" is a fairly neutral label in the way that calling someone a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" is not. You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively.
Again, what exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with my statement that Biff's answer is typical of what the Left would say about someone like Milo? Or do you merely disagree with the fact that I slammed the answer as being terrible? I'm guessing that it's the latter, because I think that we all know what most people on the Left think of Milo, and it's exactly what Biff said. If, as a result of my statement, you are shamed by the fact that you associate with the Left or share Biff's opinion about Milo, then some introspection is probably warranted on your part. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements.
|
On February 03 2017 10:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? I definitely identify as part of the left. But we're really not a monolithic entity and statements like 'this is an example of why leftists will never etc...' are too generalizing to be accurate even if as a response to a predictable cookie cutter response from a self-identified leftist. I've seen plenty leftist critique of overblown identity politics, of negative branding which stifles freedom of expression, of the ridicule directed towards non-coastal america. I've seen leftist articles lamenting how we, leftists, are supposed to protest for the rights of nazi's to freely assemble and march together rather than protest nazi's freely assembling and matching. (Alternatively, that we should do both. )
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
It's kind of like when leftists accuse conservatives of not caring about rising inequality. It might not be your loudest talking point, we're probably not be in agreement regarding neither the scope of the problem nor the solutions to said problems, but just like plenty conservatives acknowledge that inequality has reached problematic heights, there are plenty leftists opposed to the demonization of trump-supporters and various other issues you've addressed.
Where we differ is that I don't mind y'all generalizing about the Right. Feel free. The only thing that bothers me is when posters attribute certain positions directly to me without first making sure that I have adopted those positions.
As a sidenote, I don't really have an issue with the phrase regressive left. That phrase actually holds a specific meaning with some utility. I would however be very careful with not using it too frequently, lest you fall into the same trap you've so frequently accused leftists of - throwing around words like racist and sexist and homophobic so frequently that the words lose their poignancy. 
Fair enough.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans?
Okay. We've never really interacted before but because I feel like this is a response to me(maybe it isn't) I feel compelled to answer:
I've never voted left in my whole entire life. Yet you would have probably called me 'Left' 2 pages ago because I would've answered that Milo is just garbage...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 03 2017 10:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 09:04 NewSunshine wrote:On February 03 2017 08:50 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:48 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 08:40 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:35 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 03:59 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 10:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So this Neil Gorsuch fellow doesn't sound that bad. ... is that why nobody is discussing him?
Just some cursory reading but he sounds reasonable? The main controversy I see about him is his concurrence with this statement in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius the government has given us no persuasive reason to think
that Congress meant “person” in RFRA to mean anything other than its default
meaning in the Dictionary Act ( source) (RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act) Meaning that corporations that can demonstrate a religious objection to a government mandate are generally exempt from that mandate. Those criticisms tend to overlook his concurring opinion, in which he explains why the corporation's owners can also sue in their own capacities to block enforcement of the same rule, finessing the controversial portion of the decision. Hell, just read a few pages of his concurring opinion to see his understanding of religion and laws meant to protect freedom of conscience (imo, much neglected in modern debate) + Show Spoiler +All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for
ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.
As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg. No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.1 It is no less clear from the Greens’ uncontested allegations that Hobby Lobby and Mardel cannot comply with the mandate unless and until the Greens direct them to do so — that they are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the mandate.
And it is this fact, the Greens contend, that poses their problem. As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business.
I wanted to find a collection of funny opinions over the years from Gorsuch I saw on twitter because they reminded me of Frisbee & flatulence Scalia humor, but I can't find anymore. Re-discovered the main one I was looking for. AM vs HolmesA 13-year old boy was arrested and sent to juvenile detention for disrupting gym class with burping. The majority found that to be permissible, and Gorsuch disagreed: If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded. The spice together with humor is reminiscent of Scalia, even if that full hide-your-head-in-a-bag mystical-aphorisms-of-the-fortune-cookie can't be fully reborn. Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire") How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad. short answer: idiots. longer answer: law of large numbers: 300million+ people in a nation, there's gonna be a few really dumb things that happen. that's why there are appeals systems and such for error correction, cuz dumb things happen. haven't looked at this case at all to say, but the general rules hold. also because some people go bureaucrat follow rules to the letter, and don't make exceptions well. (whcih is not necessarily bad as a policy, cuz a lot of people aren't good at figuring out the right cases for which to make an exception, sometimes higher-ups need to be the ones to make the exception.) addendum: I haven't read the case, sometimes it's the case that when you read the actual case in detail for things like this, the situation is a lot more complicated and there's some decent reasoning behind it that gets omitted in the terse summaries people hear and complain about. From what i read, the case itself is about whether that kind of behaviour is lawful or not, the mother of the boy sued. But still, i am studying to get into education currently, and i am just baffled by the absurd incompetence of that teacher who thinks that that is a good idea of how to deal with students. I can imagine a few situations where i would call the cops on a student. But all of them involve real crimes, like beating up other students or things like that. Calling the cops because you are incapable of dealing with your class is just screaming "I am bad at my job and i have no idea what i am doing!" The law case itself isn't that interesting to me. (I didn't really get far in it because it got boring after the description of the background) I am just disgusted at that teacher. We need better people in education than that. what would you have the teacher do instead? I really hope you're not serious. How about any other method of discipline besides calling the cops? first, these weren't outside cops that were called, it was an in-school officer that's assigned to the school. and it was the officer's decision to charge, the officer could've just taken the kid to the principal's office and let the principal deal with it. also, how are you to stop a child who's perpetually disruptive/yelling without some level of physical force? that sounds like it might be quite difficult to do in certain cases, and with current american litigous and other standards it's simply not allowed, period. It sounds like you're judging the case based on a limited understanding, which is missing numerous details which would change your opinion if you read them. that's why I said earlier it's important to not judge too much into these cases without reading the case file to find out what really happened, the short descriptions often omit key parts of the story.
Am once more reminded by the vast cultural gap when it comes to schools in the US.
In -school officer is just so insane to me. I dont think it exists in europe, or at least not in sweden...
I can sympathize w the teacher to an extent given, as you said, how litiguous US society seems to be atm.
|
On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
...
Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse?
|
A rare piece of good news:
In the small hours of Thursday morning, US congressman Jason Chaffetz announced that he would withdraw a bill he introduced last week that would have ordered the incoming secretary of the interior to immediately sell off 3.3m acres of national land.
Chaffetz, a representative from Utah, wrote on Instagram that he had a change of heart in the face of strong opposition from “groups I support and care about” who, he said, “fear it sends the wrong message”.
House bill 621 had ignited a firestorm of indignation from conservationists but also from hunters and fishermen, who contribute to the $646bn generated by outdoor recreation across the US each year.
“Once that bill was introduced, the hornet’s nest was kicked,” said Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a group that supported public land rallies in opposition. “What happened last week was just a small fraction of the ire the sportsman community has been feeling.”
Tawney told the Guardian that for too long, the federal government’s focus has been on starving public lands of the resources needed for them to be as healthy and accessible to the public as they should be.
“We’re fired up, and this is just the beginning,” said Tawney, who promised that sportsmen would keep fighting the manifold attacks on public lands.
In his statement, Chaffetz did not mention a second piece of legislation he introduced last week, the Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act (HR 622), which would strip the Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service of its law enforcement capacity. These two federal agencies have been criticized by supporters of Cliven Bundy and some Republican politicians for enforcing federal grazing laws.
Source
|
On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse?
No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this.
|
but yeah cops in schools usually just makes everything a criminal complaint. It generally doesn't work well. or at least I've never seen any articles saying it accomplishes anything.
|
On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this.
I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics.
That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"?
EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"?
|
On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this.
The direct evidence of this is in CNN twitter calling Milo an 'extremist' and referring to the riots as 'protests'. Multiple other left leaning outlets did similiar things.
|
Wow...
The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.
The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.
Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.
A White House official said there was no ill intent, adding that the White House didn’t see State’s draft until after issuing its own statement and told State not to release its version because it came after 7 p.m. And the official said the White House didn't ask the State Department to craft their own statement.
Source
|
On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this.
Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence.
|
On February 03 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics. That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"? EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"?
To be clear, what we are talking about are groups that cause problems for political discourse. No group has anywhere close to the same negative effect on political discourse that the regressive left does.
|
On February 03 2017 11:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. The direct evidence of this is in CNN twitter calling Milo an 'extremist' and referring to the riots as 'protests'. Multiple other left leaning outlets did similiar things.
Protest is a more neutral term than riot, and Milo is nothing if not extreme. He fucking revels in his edginess.
|
On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:...What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this.
I've realised I have a separate statement about this part...
given that the "Right" deliberately prosecutes biases against these people by forbidding gay couples to marry, etc., how is the "Left" calling people names like "sexist" and "bigot" even comparable in terms of unreasonable behavior?
In other words, I'm putting forward the proposition that while the "Left" talks a good game about persecuting their opposition... the "Right" actually does it and gets away with it.
|
On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:29 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. I'm not particulaly familiar with the details of US politics, so I am at a disadvantage debating specifics. That being said, why don't you classify the Tea Party, evangelicals, etc. as "extremist assholes"? EDIT: For that matter, in what sense is the POTUS not "extremist" or not an "asshole"? To be clear, what we are talking about are groups that cause problems for political discourse. No group has anywhere close to the same negative effect on political discourse that the regressive left does.
any scholarly articles or other high quality sources to backup that claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
