|
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 15:04 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +[B]On February 03 2017 15:00 Sermokala wrote:[/B... it becomes a point of view game where people exchange how they feel about things and no one gets anywhere because people are different and they view things differently. This part is 100% correct - but what is causing our discussion to have this property is that xDaunt, among others, keeps using his point of view as an established fact and building his other statements with his point of view as a prerequisite. This is exactly what I am trying to avoid.
Then what do you propose people do to start a conversation or debate about a new topic? Most of what you're complaining about is for the sake of saving time and not having to reestablish the groundwork for said conversations and debates.
|
On February 03 2017 15:02 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 14:57 Slaughter wrote:On February 03 2017 14:50 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 14:45 Sermokala wrote:On February 03 2017 14:38 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 14:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 03 2017 14:24 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 14:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 14:19 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 14:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You sure do talk a lot for an Aussie who apparently knows very little about American politics. I made a request for you to substantiate your statements, and you responded with a purely personal attack. I think that makes it pretty clear to anybody reading this thread which of us has a reasonable position, and which of us does not. Do have a nice day. Sorry, but I don't need to substantiate the self-evident. Go do your own homework on what the Democrats do. Anything which isn't obvious to most of the other USA residents in this thread is by definition not "self-evident". You should either justify your statements about the Democrats and the Left or stop repeating them, if you want a reasonable discussion. The thread is called "US politics". If you don't know much about US politics and don't care to learn anything about it then why are you here in the first place? I know a lot about US politics. and I don't consider the claim to be self-evident. it needs substantiation. your complaint against aquanim is unfounded. furthermore, as xdaunt is the one making an affirmative claim, the onus is on him to backup his claim with either citations, or general widespread support. he does not have general widespread support, nor does he have citation he has provided. it's also unjustified to complain he doesn't want to learn when he asks for citations so he can review the matter himself and learn. Its self evident to anyone who cares about us politics that the left uses class warfare and identity politics. Its self evident by the evidence of everything democrats did in the last election cycle and the cycles before that. If you can't accept basic facts that are obvious and proven in every part of us politics then you have no place in a thread like this. are you going to seriously argue that the democrats in the united states don't use identify politics and division like class warefare in their playbooks? ALL politics is identity politics. class warfare is more a thing in the more marxist and extreme wings. some of the highly progressive dems may use it some. but the terminology you claim is suspect and quite possibly excessive. uses to what extent? do all other sides use it just as much, thus making the point of dems using it not so significant herein? "If you can't accept basic facts that are obvious and proven in every part of us politics then you have no place in a thread like this. " it is in the nature of politics that some scummy politicians argue against things that are obvious and proven because it somehow benefits them to support some fringe belief. if a basic fact is disputed, is it a basic fact? what level of rigor are you applying to that analysis? most actual facts can be backed up with extensive citations that show something more than a partisan opinion. there's also a difference between "exists in a playbook" and things like using it to shut down discourse, ruin all political discussion, or using it predominantly, rather than merely using it as one of a great many other plays. Invoking class warfare is just the lazy way the right deflects talk of raising taxes on the rich. Its the great magic of the GOP, got a bunch of middle class and low class people to defend low taxes on the super rich (because they abuse the notion of the american dream and "anyone can make it there" narratives). I don't think that this is a particularly useful post either. Talking about the "right" as a huge nebulous entity is no more conducive to a productive conversation than talking about the "left". This sentiment could be expressed as an opinion, but expressing it in this way as an assured fact does nobody here any favours.
Being anti taxes is a core issue that people on the right agree on and a big part of many different conservative sects. They just do not want the gov to be big and not have as much power/money and instead give people and non government orgs more money and responsibility. So yes it is pretty fair to say that the right is anti-tax raises.
|
On February 03 2017 15:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:04 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 15:00 Sermokala wrote:... it becomes a point of view game where people exchange how they feel about things and no one gets anywhere because people are different and they view things differently. This part is 100% correct - but what is causing our discussion to have this property is that xDaunt, among others, keeps using his point of view as an established fact and building his other statements with his point of view as a prerequisite. This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. Then what do you propose people do to start a conversation or debate about a new topic? Most of what you're complaining about is for the sake of saving time and not having to reestablish the groundwork for said conversations and debates.
The groundwork has to be established in the first place, otherwise the entire argument is based on false pretences.
Given the amount of disagreement I have seen with xDaunt's groundwork on this issue, it has not yet by any means been established.
and to your edit what you're suppose to do is continue the conversation by countering their proposition with a point or proposition of your own. Thats how a debate or discussion works. This thread isn't about exchanging facts and reason about things that happen because thats boring and is a waste of time.
The "debate or discussion" you're proposing looks like this:
Person A: I make Proposition 1 without justification.
Person B: I state Proposition 2 (that Proposition 1 is false) without justification.
Person A: I state Proposition 3 (that Proposition 2 is false) without justification
Person B: I state Proposition 4 (that Proposition 3 is false) without justification.
Now that would be a waste of time. And, incidentally, against Rules 1, 2 and 3 of this thread (consult the OP).
|
On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics.
I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia.
But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president.
|
On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president.
To be fair to XDaunt I am pretty sure he has stated he isn't that big of a fan of Trump personally either, he rather just sees him as a means to an end.
|
On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president.
So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around?
And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is?
|
On February 03 2017 15:09 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:06 Sermokala wrote:On February 03 2017 15:04 Aquanim wrote:[B]On February 03 2017 15:00 Sermokala wrote:[/B... it becomes a point of view game where people exchange how they feel about things and no one gets anywhere because people are different and they view things differently. This part is 100% correct - but what is causing our discussion to have this property is that xDaunt, among others, keeps using his point of view as an established fact and building his other statements with his point of view as a prerequisite. This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. Then what do you propose people do to start a conversation or debate about a new topic? Most of what you're complaining about is for the sake of saving time and not having to reestablish the groundwork for said conversations and debates. The groundwork has to be established in the first place, otherwise the entire argument is based on false pretences. Given the amount of disagreement I have seen with xDaunt's groundwork on this issue, it has not yet by any means been established.
I would argue with a smile that this is probably for the best considering the subject matter. And on that I'm going to bed.
|
On February 03 2017 15:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:09 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 15:06 Sermokala wrote:On February 03 2017 15:04 Aquanim wrote:[B]On February 03 2017 15:00 Sermokala wrote:[/B... it becomes a point of view game where people exchange how they feel about things and no one gets anywhere because people are different and they view things differently. This part is 100% correct - but what is causing our discussion to have this property is that xDaunt, among others, keeps using his point of view as an established fact and building his other statements with his point of view as a prerequisite. This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. Then what do you propose people do to start a conversation or debate about a new topic? Most of what you're complaining about is for the sake of saving time and not having to reestablish the groundwork for said conversations and debates. The groundwork has to be established in the first place, otherwise the entire argument is based on false pretences. Given the amount of disagreement I have seen with xDaunt's groundwork on this issue, it has not yet by any means been established. I would argue with a smile that this is probably for the best considering the subject matter. And on that I'm going to bed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem in any way related to our discussion, or whatever malfeasances you were accusing me of.
|
On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is?
You have a bad and consistent habit of playing guessing games. Like just today posting 4-5 times how people have got Milo all wrong and don't understand the underlying message, despite never saying what that message even was. You are also constantly vague and love to generalize making it all the more annoying that you expect anyone to read into your rationale or intentions. Is this an internet forum or that web genie guessing game?
that's all. carry on!
|
On February 03 2017 15:37 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is? You have a bad and consistent habit of playing guessing games. Like just today posting 4-5 times how people have got Milo all wrong and don't understand the underlying message, despite never saying what that message even was. You are also constantly vague and love to generalize making it all the more annoying that you expect anyone to read into your rationale or intentions. Is this an internet forum or that web genie guessing game? that's all. carry on!
Ever hear of the Socratic Method? I find it far more useful than presuming what the other side thinks.
|
On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is?
A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned).
Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times).
If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him.
|
On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is? A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned). Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times). If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him.
You cannot blame conservatives for the insane overuse of these terms by the left. It is their sole mission in life to devalue the words 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe', 'nazi' and 'homophobe'. And they have succeeded.
|
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent.
|
On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:
One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism.
I don't think much, if any, well-poisoning happened. The use of racism and sexism simply expanded to include things that aren't, to reasonable observers, evil.
|
On February 03 2017 16:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent.
He mentioned specific terms. I responded regarding those terms. Stop being so pitifully defensive and acknowledge the problem rather than immediately crying 'but they do it too!'
|
On February 03 2017 16:08 bardtown wrote:It is their sole mission in life to devalue the words 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe', 'nazi' and 'homophobe'.
Keep the hyperbole to a dull roar, please.
|
On February 03 2017 16:08 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 15:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 13:40 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:[quote] 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. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right. So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics. I would certainly dispute that the Democratic Party largely operates based on calling people racists, sexists, etc. it might look that way because they just finished an election in which those were especially relevant topics, but that's to do with who they were running sgainst more than anything else. I mean I'm sure you can find some articles from somewhere or other in 2012 accusing Romney of sexism or something, but for the most part that campaign wasn't about race, sex, or xenophobia. But Donald Trump has a storied history with race. His campaign was built heavily on fearmongering about various types of foreigners. And if you can honestly look at the things Donald Trump has said to and about women and say the Democrats are just imagining he has a problem there, you're nowhere near the cool, detached analyst you seem to consider yourself. So yeah, Democrats used those words a lot. They applied. And they thought (wrongly, in retrospect) that Americans would consider those qualities deal-breakers in a president. So why do you think that the attacks did not work this time around? And for extra credit, what do you think my answer to that question is? A lot of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that conservatives have been poisoning the well on any "politically correct" labels so much that people no longer think of racism or sexism as the great societal evils they are. They just think of it as some nagging liberals whining about something or other. Notably, this makes it so that when people are faced with actual racism, they automatically assume it's not really racism. It's probably tongue-in-cheek, or just meant to protest against PC culture, or something. Thus you get a serious dispute about whether or not the alt-right is racist despite r/altright regularly going full anti-miscegenation (As an aside, I was going to link to some racist r/altright posts as proof but apparently that subreddit got banned). Another decent answer is that it did work in a sense – Donald Trump is the least popular winning candidate in history, after all. If both candidates are that unpopular, it seems reasonable to think both sides' mudslinging landed pretty well. I don't think most people heard much about DT's racism, and xenophobia is usually a bit too convoluted to make a very effective attack, but after the Access Hollywood tape I don't think anybody was about to argue Donald Trump didn't have a women problem. It just wasn't enough to stop his chances (I hesitate to even bring this up because I'm really tired of re-litigating this election, and if LL hears he'll come and say "electable" 20 more times). If I had to guess, I'm guessing you don't think Donald Trump is a racist, and the sexism stuff is overblown. As for "xenophobia," you probably think that's just a pejorative to dismiss legitimate fears about the effects of immigrants on the country. But hey, I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel free to share your reasons why Donald Trump's apparent racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not legitimate reasons to dislike him. You cannot blame conservatives for the insane overuse of these terms by the left. It is their sole mission in life to devalue the words 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe', 'nazi' and 'homophobe'. And they have succeeded.
While I agree that some people do do this, to attribute this behaviour to the whole of the 'left' is just unfair and shows a remarkable lack of nuance.
Most leftists I know don't go around calling people racist or nazis at all. Its usually just a very small but extremely vocal group of students and people who never grew out of the student mentality.
Believe me when I say its just as frustrating for many on the left as it is for you, because we all seem to get tarred by the same brush because of it.
|
On February 03 2017 16:47 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 16:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent. He mentioned specific terms. I responded regarding those terms. Stop being so pitifully defensive and acknowledge the problem rather than immediately crying 'but they do it too!'
Have you entertained the idea that racism was much more widespread than you think and that the GOP operating its con on the basis of racial resentment, it is kind of normal to see those words flying a lot? I sincerely think that without the prism of racial tensions, american politics would make no sense at all.
Now, I have seen the usual suspects here arguing that black people were natirally more prone to violent behaviour (cuz you know they are black) and then defending themselves from being racist.
Racist is an overused word. But it is also way too quickly dimissed when used for very good reasons as "PC" attacks.
|
On February 03 2017 17:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 16:47 bardtown wrote:On February 03 2017 16:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets cut the crap. The right uses terms till they've lost all meaning as well. Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Regressive Left, Communist, SJW, Cuck, Libcuck, Fascist, etc. Let's not pretend only one side throws around words as insults until they're impotent. He mentioned specific terms. I responded regarding those terms. Stop being so pitifully defensive and acknowledge the problem rather than immediately crying 'but they do it too!' Have you entertained the idea that racism was much more widespread than you think and that the GOP operating its con on the basis of racial resentment, it is kind of normal to see those words flying a lot? I sincerely think that without the prism of racial tensions, american politics would make no sense at all. Now, I have seen the usual suspects here arguing that black people were natirally more prone to violent behaviour (cuz you know they are black) and then defending themselves from being racist. Racist is an overused word. But it is also way too quickly dimissed when used for very good reasons as "PC" attacks.
I am a direct recipient of this behaviour because I am a vocal supporter of Brexit. You cannot imagine how many times I have been called a racist in the past 6 months or so, and I see exactly the same behaviour in the US. Have you ever entertained the idea that racism might be much less widespread than you think, and that people simply don't like illegal immigration, incompatible value systems and violent crime - regardless of their source? Many of these people voted Obama for 8 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
