|
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 March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you.
Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it.
So yes, I am using the term properly.
|
|
|
On March 04 2017 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:11 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2017 15:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much. What's going on at university campuses is just one aspect of the larger problem. Yeah, one freakishly small and inconsequential aspect, that's the point I think folks are trying to drive home. To the point where this much fixation on it is wholly unwarranted and emblematic of a much larger problem. We on the right like to focus on the campus issue because it so clearly illustrates what the larger problem is. Burning shit down is far more attention grabbing than simply calling someone a racist. + Show Spoiler +What's the much larger issue in your view?
The regressive left's poisoning of political discourse at a national level. I've written about this extensively previously, so I'm not sure what's left to say. Go look up any of my rants about identity politics.
|
On March 04 2017 15:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you. Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it. So yes, I am using the term properly.
I was both challenging your use of the word and the existence of what you describe in the real world. That's why I started my post by saying "The regressive left isn't a thing". The regressive left, as you use the word, is so much not a thing in the real world that even the people who invented the term "regressive left" don't think it describes what you think it does.
|
On March 04 2017 15:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2017 15:11 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2017 15:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I refuse to take seriously that it's the regressive left shutting down tools from speaking on campuses that the problem and not having a president who insults people like a third grader that would have a bigger impact. Seriously, that's so absurd I'd expect it from RiK not xDaunt.
I'll let pass a lot of ridiculous stuff, but that's too much. What's going on at university campuses is just one aspect of the larger problem. Yeah, one freakishly small and inconsequential aspect, that's the point I think folks are trying to drive home. To the point where this much fixation on it is wholly unwarranted and emblematic of a much larger problem. We on the right like to focus on the campus issue because it so clearly illustrates what the larger problem is. Burning shit down is far more attention grabbing than simply calling someone a racist. + Show Spoiler +What's the much larger issue in your view? The regressive left's poisoning of political discourse at a national level. I've written about this extensively previously, so I'm not sure what's left to say. Go look up any of my rants about identity politics.
If you think it is only extreme leftist poisoning political discourse then I am afraid you haven't been paying attention to the US congress the last 8 years or wade into some of the far right extreme discussions.
|
United States43948 Posts
So the Justice Department is ceasing "Obama's war on cops" by ending the investigations into systematic abuses, racism and unnecessary force that have routinely been discovering that there are actual issues that need to be urgently addressed in order for the communities to feel safe and feel that the police represent them.
Presumably the regressive left made them do that.
Problem solved boys, and as long as we can keep screaming regressive left we need never look at societies problems.
|
On March 04 2017 15:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you. Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it. So yes, I am using the term properly. I was both challenging your use of the word and the existence of what you describe in the real world. That's why I started my post by saying "The regressive left isn't a thing". The regressive left, as you use the word, is so much not a thing in the real world that even the people who invented the term "regressive left" don't think it describes what you think it does.
Again, you're arguing terminology. There very clearly is a group of illiberal leftists out there who are intolerant of opposing opinions. I am labeling them the "regressive left." Deal with it.
|
Members of the Middlebury College Community:
As many of you are aware by now, a large group of student protestors disrupted Charles Murray's talk yesterday afternoon in Wilson Hall in McCullough Student Center. I am deeply disappointed by the events that I witnessed and it was painful for many people in our community to experience. I know that many students, faculty, and staff who were in attendance or waiting outside to participate were upset by the events, and the lost opportunity for those in our community who wanted to listen to and engage with Mr. Murray.
With some effort, we were able to move Mr. Murray to another location where he and Prof. Allison Stanger, who was scheduled to moderate the Q&A following his talk, were able—though with challenges—to go ahead with the talk and a probing conversation afterward.
Following the event, protests continued outside of McCullough as well. Unfortunately, one group of demonstrators aggressively confronted Mr. Murray and Prof. Allison Stanger as they left McCullough Student Center. That confrontation turned into a violent incident with a lot of pushing and shoving, and an attack on the car in which they were leaving campus. We believe that many of these protestors were outside agitators, but there are indications that Middlebury College students were involved as well.
We will be responding in the very near future to the clear violations of Middlebury College policy that occurred inside and outside Wilson Hall.
Today our community begins the process of addressing the deep and troubling divisions that were on display last night. I am grateful to those who share this goal and have offered to help. We must find a path to establishing a climate of open discourse as a core Middlebury value, while also recognizing critical matters of race, inclusion, class, sexual and gender identity, and the other factors that too often divide us. That work will take time, and I will have more to say about that in the days ahead.
Last night we failed to live up to our core values. But I remain hopeful. Last evening, several students, faculty, and staff representing a large spectrum of political perspectives remained in Wilson Hall to discuss the events and to talk about building bridges. Their ability to reach across differences in a rigorous but respectful way was a stark contrast to the events that preceded it. I firmly believe these are the Middlebury values that we have lived so long and that we must strive to embody in the future.
I extend my sincerest apologies to everyone who came in good faith to participate in a serious discussion, and particularly to Mr. Murray and Prof. Stanger for the way they were treated during the event and, especially, afterward.
Laurie L. Patton
President]
http://www.middlebury.edu/about/president/addresses/2017-addresses/node/545919
Statement from the college's president on the incident.
|
On March 04 2017 15:28 KwarK wrote:
So the Justice Department is ceasing "Obama's war on cops" by ending the investigations into systematic abuses, racism and unnecessary force that have routinely been discovering that there are actual issues that need to be urgently addressed in order for the communities to feel safe and feel that the police represent them.
Presumably the regressive left made them do that.
Problem solved boys, and as long as we can keep screaming regressive left we need never look at societies problems.
Thank you for succinctly capturing the contemporary context of this discussion. From ignorant people I wouldn't find this so obscene, but from xDaunt this whole thing is both morally repugnant and intellectually offensive.
|
On March 04 2017 15:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you. Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it. So yes, I am using the term properly. I was both challenging your use of the word and the existence of what you describe in the real world. That's why I started my post by saying "The regressive left isn't a thing". The regressive left, as you use the word, is so much not a thing in the real world that even the people who invented the term "regressive left" don't think it describes what you think it does. Again, you're arguing terminology. There very clearly is a group of illiberal leftists out there who are intolerant of opposing opinions. I am labeling them the "regressive left." Deal with it.
You're talking about me, I don't understand why you're mentioning "a group of illiberal leftists". I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist, and I think if it can be proven that you are demonstrably wrong about some things it should be grounds to expect that you change your opinion about said things.
People like me, the people you describe in this sentence, don't have the attributes that you ascribe to the "regressive left", which makes it, in reality, not a thing.
|
Canada11498 Posts
On March 04 2017 15:28 KwarK wrote:
So the Justice Department is ceasing "Obama's war on cops" by ending the investigations into systematic abuses, racism and unnecessary force that have routinely been discovering that there are actual issues that need to be urgently addressed in order for the communities to feel safe and feel that the police represent them.
Presumably the regressive left made them do that.
Problem solved boys, and as long as we can keep screaming regressive left we need never look at societies problems.
It needn't be such an either/ or thing. It very well could be that there are systematic problems in the police force AND there is a devaluation of free expression because of mob action.
On March 04 2017 15:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you. Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it. So yes, I am using the term properly. I was both challenging your use of the word and the existence of what you describe in the real world. That's why I started my post by saying "The regressive left isn't a thing". The regressive left, as you use the word, is so much not a thing in the real world that even the people who invented the term "regressive left" don't think it describes what you think it does.
I was very skeptical of such groups only 2-3 years ago and mocked the idea. But I now think you are wrong about there being an element of people on the left side of the spectrum that are less egalitarian than they are authoritarian. Call them whatever you want, but at the University of Toronto a free speech and fiscal responsibility conference was shut down by an identifiable group chanting "no fascists, no KKK, no white supremacy" to black and Chinese conservatives that want nothing to do with white supremacy or fascism, or the KKK. I don't think it does leftist egalitarians any good to deny that there is a group of leftist authoritarians, because I rather expect they aren't on your side either, even if the egalitarians insist on defending them. I don't think the favour will be returned.
|
On March 04 2017 15:28 KwarK wrote:
So the Justice Department is ceasing "Obama's war on cops" by ending the investigations into systematic abuses, racism and unnecessary force that have routinely been discovering that there are actual issues that need to be urgently addressed in order for the communities to feel safe and feel that the police represent them.
Presumably the regressive left made them do that.
Problem solved boys, and as long as we can keep screaming regressive left we need never look at societies problems.
I'm sure the next time there's unrest somewhere it will be handled in a calm and responsible manner that emphasizes deescelation. Cause what's the worst that could happen?
|
On March 04 2017 15:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you. Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it. So yes, I am using the term properly. I was both challenging your use of the word and the existence of what you describe in the real world. That's why I started my post by saying "The regressive left isn't a thing". The regressive left, as you use the word, is so much not a thing in the real world that even the people who invented the term "regressive left" don't think it describes what you think it does. Again, you're arguing terminology. There very clearly is a group of illiberal leftists out there who are intolerant of opposing opinions. I am labeling them the "regressive left." Deal with it. You're talking about me, I don't understand why you're mentioning "a group of illiberal leftists". I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist, and I think if it can be proven that you are demonstrably wrong about some things it should be grounds to expect that you change your opinion about said things. People like me, the people you describe in this sentence, don't have the attributes that you ascribe to the "regressive left", which makes it, in reality, not a thing.
Then feel free to self-identify out of the group. I really don't care.
|
On March 04 2017 15:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:28 KwarK wrote:
So the Justice Department is ceasing "Obama's war on cops" by ending the investigations into systematic abuses, racism and unnecessary force that have routinely been discovering that there are actual issues that need to be urgently addressed in order for the communities to feel safe and feel that the police represent them.
Presumably the regressive left made them do that.
Problem solved boys, and as long as we can keep screaming regressive left we need never look at societies problems. I'm sure the next time there's unrest somewhere it will be handled in a calm and responsible manner that emphasizes deescelation. Cause what's the worst that could happen?
The correct answer is the liberal usage of water cannons and tear gas the next time that a mob gets out of control.
|
On March 04 2017 15:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:33 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:14 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 15:04 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to
[quote]
Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights?
Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. But I thought you didn't want to get bogged down in conversations about semantics? You may want to recheck the definition of semantics, because you're not using the term properly here. Neither were you earlier but that didn't seem to stop you. Arguments over semantics are arguments about what certain words mean. Your challenging my definition of "regressive left" is an argument about semantics. When the regressive left slanders the entire opposition as "racists," the responding argument is about what the regressive left actually means. We know exactly what they mean and take offense to it. So yes, I am using the term properly. I was both challenging your use of the word and the existence of what you describe in the real world. That's why I started my post by saying "The regressive left isn't a thing". The regressive left, as you use the word, is so much not a thing in the real world that even the people who invented the term "regressive left" don't think it describes what you think it does. Again, you're arguing terminology. There very clearly is a group of illiberal leftists out there who are intolerant of opposing opinions. I am labeling them the "regressive left." Deal with it. You're talking about me, I don't understand why you're mentioning "a group of illiberal leftists". I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist, and I think if it can be proven that you are demonstrably wrong about some things it should be grounds to expect that you change your opinion about said things. People like me, the people you describe in this sentence, don't have the attributes that you ascribe to the "regressive left", which makes it, in reality, not a thing. Then feel free to self-identify out of the group. I really don't care.
What's your incentive to play dumb right now? I am very clearly not self-identifying out of the group.
|
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into.
|
On March 04 2017 15:08 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 14:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 14:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the larger point is all of this effort and boisterousness from the right over these particular instances, but they are so quiet or actively advancing the systemic abuse of other people's constitutional rights. It's actually gotten to Stated another way, I just want the regressive left to be honest and admit that they're a bunch of fascists. Like, jfc, if the "regressive left" (whoever the hell that is) are "a bunch of fascists", what do we call police departments systemically abusing PoC's constitutional rights across the nation? Or the politicians that want to make it worse, or the people who support politicians who flagrantly support the widespread violations of people's constitutional rights? Frankly, I don't expect the same people to give them a fitting name, but we shouldn't have to pretend it isn't what it is. Like I've said before, it is almost impossible to have a conversation about those other issues (which should be more important) as long as the regressive left continues to degrade the state of political discourse. aw shit guys, should we tell him who just got elected president?
You are mistaking an effect for a cause.
|
Canada11498 Posts
@Wolf
You don't think so? What I've seen in the last few pages has seemed pretty earnest.
|
On March 04 2017 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into.
That's your cognitive dissonance talking.
|
On March 04 2017 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm a bit amused some people still think xDaunt argues in good faith. Half the fun of these discussions involving him are the contortions he twists himself into.
Depends what you call good faith. I certainly believe xDaunt's main incentive in any conversation is to find out why the left is wrong rather than to find out what's the correct answer, but I don't see any reason to say he doesn't honestly believe what he puts forward in order to achieve that goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
