|
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. |
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.
I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump.
pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said
|
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"?
Right after he calls attention to the longevity and pervasive of calling everything racist sexist bigot ... you bring up some major players you want to label extremist assholes. We're getting to the presumption that you're guilty unless proven innocent. How about what things have you heard about evangelicals and the Tea Party that you consider extremist and asshole behavior? I freely grant that mass deportations and making somebody else pay for a wall is/was an extreme immigration view for Trump, and he's exhibited asshole behavior during the campaign and before.
|
Norway28621 Posts
On February 03 2017 10:44 Nyxisto wrote:
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?
I think as a term it's usually misused and thus I understand the animosity of it. But as I understand it it's not really supposed to have any direct nationalist vs globalist connotations, (although there's an almost perfect overlap in people using regressive left leaning nationalist), it's a way of denigrating the (I would say fringe) elements of the left engaged in negative branding (if you're a trump supporter you're racist) which makes people afraid to speak their minds freely, which thus is perceived to contribute towards the eroding of freedom of thought and expression, cornerstones of western civilization.
I think while Trump is certainly guilty of further dividing the nation through his actions and lack of human decency, his strategy could not have won him the presidency if the country wasn't so divided in the first place. To me, it seems unrealistic that the republicans share the entire blame for this problem. I don't mind acknowledging that there are voices on the left that argue in an overly antagonistic manner, and I don't really mind the term regressive left to describe this group. Where I disagree with probably everyone who uses it is how many leftists belong to this group - but then I also subscribe to the idea that a small minority within a given group is very capable of tarnishing the reputation of the entire group. 
|
On February 03 2017 11:44 Danglars wrote:
Right after he calls attention to the longevity and pervasive of calling everything racist sexist bigot ... you bring up some major players you want to label extremist assholes...
I invite you to go back and check who labelled a group as "extremist assholes" (in particualar by implication) first in that conversation, Danglars. Be sure to report back on what you find.
|
To put this in perspective when the Republicans impeached Clinton they never even approached these numbers, Nixon didn't hit these numbers till March of 74 and only hit 50% after the SCOTUS ordered him to release the tapes. Trump hit 40% after two weeks...
Forty percent of registered voters support impeaching President Trump, according to a poll released Thursday from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP).
Nearly half of voters, 48 percent, are opposed to impeaching Trump, and 12 percent remain unsure, according to the poll.
Pollsters also found that a majority of voters, 52 percent, would prefer former President Obama in his old role rather than Trump; 43 percent prefer Trump, and 5 percent are uncertain.
“Usually a newly elected president is at the peak of their popularity and enjoying their honeymoon after taking office,” PPP President Dean Debnam said in a statement.
“But Donald Trump’s making history once again with a sizeable share of voters already wanting to impeach him, and a majority of voters wishing they could have Barack Obama back.”
PPP polling found that 49 percent of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance since his inauguration on Jan. 20 and 47 percent approve.
Overall impressions of Trump remain negative, according to the poll, with 52 percent viewing him unfavorably and 45 percent viewing him favorably.
A number of major protests have punctuated the first two weeks of Trump's presidency, including over women's issues and Trump's order last week denying U.S. entry to travelers and refugees from several Muslim-majority countries.
Democrats and civil rights organizations have hammered Trump’s move as unconstitutional and biased against Muslims. Trump has dismissed those criticisms, arguing that the order is crucial for protecting the nation from terrorism.
Source
|
On February 03 2017 11:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:30 biology]major 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. 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.
This is why we (left and right) barely agree on this forum. We can't even agree on basic shit like what terms to apply appropriately for events/people.
|
On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote: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. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said
I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate.
|
On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS 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. 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.
You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument.
|
i'd like to see poll results from different sources on that same question; given the unreliability of individual polls.
not that the results are all that surprising or anything.
bio -> what terms to apply for events people isn't basic shit; its' far more complicated given the effect of subtle and moderate biases on attribution. plus framing issues, fairness of framing, blah blah and a bunch of other stuff.
|
On February 03 2017 11:53 zlefin wrote:
i'd like to see poll results from different sources on that same question; given the unreliability of individual polls.
not that the results are all that surprising or anything.
bio -> what terms to apply for events people isn't basic shit; its' far more complicated given the effect of subtle and moderate biases on attribution. plus framing issues, fairness of framing, blah blah and a bunch of other stuff.
do you think the berkley event was a protest or a riot. Do you think Milo is an extremist or not.
|
On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS 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. 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. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument.
Unless you have a good reason to claim that they are "few and without influence", OR you are explicitly not claiming that they are "few and without influence", you're arguing in as bad faith as you claim he is.
|
On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive.
Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights?
|
On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote: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. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate.
What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has?
|
Regressive left,is that sanders&co and left of that like socialism,or is it the mainstream left/democrats and PC culture?
Just asking,not sure what part of the left is being seen as regressive.
Anyway:trump is doing well so far I think,working very hard. At least it feels as if he has everything under control. The media they will stay salty for a bit longer,not much you can do about it.
|
On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote: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. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has?
You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?"
|
On February 03 2017 11:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Wow... Show nested quote +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
All lives matter!
|
On February 03 2017 11:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:53 zlefin wrote:
i'd like to see poll results from different sources on that same question; given the unreliability of individual polls.
not that the results are all that surprising or anything.
bio -> what terms to apply for events people isn't basic shit; its' far more complicated given the effect of subtle and moderate biases on attribution. plus framing issues, fairness of framing, blah blah and a bunch of other stuff.
do you think the berkley event was a protest or a riot. Do you think Milo is an extremist or not.
there was a protest. there was also a riot.
both events can occur simultaneously. the reports from people on the ground indicate they were 2 separate events that occurred at the same place. there's no reason to say i'ts just one or another as it's multiple different events. a single classification misses the important distinctions. if pressed, i'd say it was a protest, at which a separate riot also occurred.
I'm not sure if Milo is an extremist as I haven't watched him; the reports i've heard indicate that he's a troll, and an asshole. as such whether he's an extremist or not don't really matter to me.
|
The term was originally coined to describe when the left swings back so far it starts looking like the fascist right, when you become that which you hate, using the horseshoe theory of politics. The term has been dragged through the mud and thrown around so much as to have no meaning left anymore. Horseshoe Theory
|
On February 03 2017 11:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote: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. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has? You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?"
Racist is clearly a more charged word, but if the end result is ignoring the entirety of the other side's argument when you think the label applies, is it really any different with regards to political discourse?
|
On February 03 2017 11:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:57 Azuzu wrote:On February 03 2017 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:44 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 11:34 xDaunt wrote: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. I think your judgement on the metric of "problems for political discourse" is greatly compromised by the fact that you disagree with the "regressive left" on far more topics than you disagree with the Tea Party or with Trump. pre-edit: pretty much what zlefin said I don't think you understand the scope of the issue. According the Regressive Left, people who support shutting down illegal immigration and deporting illegal immigrants are racists. People who think that religious institutions shouldn't be compelled to pay for their employee's birth control in violation of religious beliefs are sexists. These are misapplications of the terms that poison the debate. What effect on an honest debate do you think calling someone an SJW has? You really think that "SJW" has the same stigma as "racist?"
Speaking for myself, probably not, at this point in time anyway.
Do you think that the stigma of actually being homosexual is comparable to that of being called a sexist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
