|
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 15:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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 not playing dumb about anything. I've provided my definition. This group clearly exists as evidenced by all the bullshit we see at the universities and the more extreme rhetoric that we see some from the left. I really don't give two shits whether you fall into this group or not. Debating the margin in this instance is as dumb as debating the semantics.
|
On March 04 2017 15:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: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.
Yeah like those pesky water protectors, that police and private security forces released dogs, water cannons (in freezing weather), tear gas, rubber bullets and more on. But tell me more about the plight of Milos on campus. Give, me a break.
I'm just hoping it's trolling at this point and not sincere.
I'll be fine if you just admit you only care because he agrees with you.
|
On March 04 2017 15:54 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
You don't think so? What I've seen in the last few pages has seemed pretty earnest.
Okay, "good faith" is probably the wrong term to use. I don't really doubt that he believes the things he says (but if it's all a giant troll, kudos to sticking with it).
But you can get him to do an instant 180 on any topic purely by changing the subject. Take the whole freedom of speech discussion...people like Milo should get government/police intervention to protect them at universities (additionally amusing if you go back and find his opinions on government involvement for most things). The regressive left fascists speaking against him need to have police presence shutting them down.
Only common stance he seems to take are the things he supports and the things he wants gone, and the points surrounding them can change and shift as needed.
|
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.
xDaunt's as intolerant of dissenting opinion as anyone I've seen on this forum, with a tendency for obfuscation and dismissiveness. If we get to make our own labels, then he's clearly a member of the regressive right.
On March 04 2017 16:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:51 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 15:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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've provided my definition. This group clearly exists...
In your head, yes.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting.
Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum.
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't.
EDIT:
becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood"
How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics.
|
On March 04 2017 15:07 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 12:59 Amui wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself? IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully. Right. So I agree you are not guaranteed any platform you would like. (I'll accept that correction from Danglar- you can demand it, but no one is obligated to give it.) But is it really free speech or freedom of expression if every time you spoke you were drowned out by shouts and chants? Are you really expressing freely? I'll take my second scenario: would we really consider it an acceptable amount of free speech afforded to non-binary/ gender fluid advocates if every-single-time they spoke, you couldn't hear because they were drowned out by chants or amplified white noise? Is that actually free speech? I'm just trying to drill down to what does free speech or free expression actually entail (which is very likely different from what the First Amendment does or does not do.)
was going to write a response to this but realised that A. It's late and my brains not working well and B) to respond properly I'd probably need to write like an entire page of the argument since we're getting into philosophy and it's rather complicated. If I can manage to put my thoughts down well tomorrow I'll pm you. Like I said though, it will probably be rather long.
|
On March 04 2017 16:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:54 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
You don't think so? What I've seen in the last few pages has seemed pretty earnest. Okay, "good faith" is probably the wrong term to use. I don't really doubt that he believes the things he says (but if it's all a giant troll, kudos to sticking with it). But you can get him to do an instant 180 on any topic purely by changing the subject. Take the whole freedom of speech discussion...people like Milo should get government/police intervention to protect them at universities (additionally amusing if you go back and find his opinions on government involvement for most things). The regressive left fascists speaking against him need to have police presence shutting them down. Only common stance he seems to take are the things he supports and the things he wants gone, and the points surrounding them can change and shift as needed.
Theres no 180 on the topic. The ones that hes advocating protection from are the Antifa groups that the police need to shut down.
I don't see why people have such a vivid reaction to someone creating a term that clearly identifies what group it identifies to. You can't have "tolerance and love" and yet sprew hate and intolerance based on politics. Antifa may call themselves anti facists but they operate and organize just like facists.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 04 2017 16:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:07 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 12:59 Amui wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself? IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully. Right. So I agree you are not guaranteed any platform you would like. (I'll accept that correction from Danglar- you can demand it, but no one is obligated to give it.) But is it really free speech or freedom of expression if every time you spoke you were drowned out by shouts and chants? Are you really expressing freely? I'll take my second scenario: would we really consider it an acceptable amount of free speech afforded to non-binary/ gender fluid advocates if every-single-time they spoke, you couldn't hear because they were drowned out by chants or amplified white noise? Is that actually free speech? I'm just trying to drill down to what does free speech or free expression actually entail (which is very likely different from what the First Amendment does or does not do.) was going to write a response to this but realised that A. It's late and my brains not working well and B) to respond properly I'd probably need to write like an entire page of the argument since we're getting into philosophy and it's rather complicated. If I can manage to put my thoughts down well tomorrow I'll pm you. Like I said though, it will probably be rather long.
Would be interested in reading it as well, and seems on-topic enough to post it in here?
|
On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: Show nested quote +becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics.
The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsiblity resides with people on the right wing of politics.
I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsiblity resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one.
I saw that post, and it's of course not true that they bear the sole responsibility. But several people in here are arguing that this group does not even exist.
If we can't even admit they are a problem, they become such supremely useful idiots for people on the other extreme of the spectrum...
|
On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsibility resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one.
Its agreeable that a tit for tat makes the blame equitable on both sides but the reliance on identity politics and class warefare certinly has escalated this degradation of discourse.
|
On March 04 2017 16:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsibility resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one. Its agreeable that a tit for tat makes the blame equitable on both sides but the reliance on identity politics and class warefare certinly has escalated this degradation of discourse.
This isn't a rational or evidence based argument either. Simply repeating a statement over and over does not and never will make it true.
EDIT: I can just as easily say that the right wing's reliance on straight-up lies has escalated the degradation of discourse. Whether I am right or not, repeating that statement over and over is a completely worthless thing to do.
|
On March 04 2017 16:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsibility resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one. Its agreeable that a tit for tat makes the blame equitable on both sides but the reliance on identity politics and class warefare certinly has escalated this degradation of discourse. This isn't a rational or evidence based argument either. Simply repeating a statement over and over does not and never will make it true.
Politics isn't a rational or evidence based undertaking most of the time. in Politics repeating a statement over and over can and has made it true.
People have been lieing in politics for as long as its been a thing. Thats not an argument.
|
On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me.
|
On March 04 2017 16:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsiblity resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one. I saw that post, and it's of course not true that they bear the sole responsibility. But several people in here are arguing that this group does not even exist. If we can't even admit they are a problem, they become such supremely useful idiots for people on the other extreme of the spectrum...
I can't speak for anybody else, but I think most arguments in this thread have been that the "regressive left" does not exist in the sense that xDaunt says it does. Some of the wording has not been clear on that point.
Repeating for emphasis, I do not speak for anybody else in this thread.
|
On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues?
I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there.
Hi Jinro, I'm one of the people that xDaunt and you are talking about. I don't think I'm useless, I can certainly see an argument made that I'm toxic cause I'm more than a little confrontational when I'm sure that I'm right, and I expect people to aspire not to be incorrect when they talk about important things. I am however not a fascist, and I don't have any of the attributes that xDaunt gives to the regressive left as a group that he targets when speaking about people like me.
You are self identifying with the authoritarian left that thinks hate and combative language is the way to make society better?
Communists were useless and we all got rid of them and now we laugh at them.
|
On March 04 2017 16:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:31 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 16:28 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 16:24 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I've been reading back through this discussion trying to figure out why it's even going on... There very clearly are a group (that is if nothing else loud) on the left to whom the label 'regressive left' is honestly surprisingly fitting. Admitting this does not seem to take anything away from the real problems on the other side of the spectrum. So why not just agree that those people are at best useless (in terms of advancing any kind of debate/cause), distance yourself from them and try to focus on the actual issues? I don't agree with almost a single thing that xDaunt generally posts in these threads but acting like there isn't a loud group of just absolutely toxic people on the left right now seems completely crazy? It's like denying the existence of alt-righters.... They are very clearly there. Am sort of hesitant to hit post on this because I feel like I've missed something, but I read the past several pages trying to make sure I wasn't. EDIT: becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood" How is this not an apt description of certain elements of today's left? They are literally setting things back with their rhetoric/tactics. The part you've missed is that xDaunt claims these people are either solely or mostly responsible for the degradation of political discourse, and therefore that little or no responsibility resides with people on the right wing of politics. I've asked xDaunt for a rational and evidence based justification of this position previously. I did not get one. Its agreeable that a tit for tat makes the blame equitable on both sides but the reliance on identity politics and class warefare certinly has escalated this degradation of discourse. This isn't a rational or evidence based argument either. Simply repeating a statement over and over does not and never will make it true. Politics isn't a rational or evidence based undertaking most of the time. in Politics repeating a statement over and over can and has made it true. People have been lieing in politics for as long as its been a thing. Thats not an argument.
I would say that repeating a statement over and over has made other people act as if it were true. That is not the same thing as making the statement true.
Do you actually have a reason why I should believe that the (regressive) left is primarily responsible for the degradation of political discourse? For reference, saying that you believe it is not a reason why I should believe it.
|
Canada11378 Posts
On March 04 2017 16:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 15:07 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 12:59 Amui wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself? IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully. Right. So I agree you are not guaranteed any platform you would like. (I'll accept that correction from Danglar- you can demand it, but no one is obligated to give it.) But is it really free speech or freedom of expression if every time you spoke you were drowned out by shouts and chants? Are you really expressing freely? I'll take my second scenario: would we really consider it an acceptable amount of free speech afforded to non-binary/ gender fluid advocates if every-single-time they spoke, you couldn't hear because they were drowned out by chants or amplified white noise? Is that actually free speech? I'm just trying to drill down to what does free speech or free expression actually entail (which is very likely different from what the First Amendment does or does not do.) was going to write a response to this but realised that A. It's late and my brains not working well and B) to respond properly I'd probably need to write like an entire page of the argument since we're getting into philosophy and it's rather complicated. If I can manage to put my thoughts down well tomorrow I'll pm you. Like I said though, it will probably be rather long.
I would be interested to hear it. I am asking these questions because I am actually asking these questions in real life. A lot of what I thought I thought, I have been re-evaluating and I have started wondering if this very strict, literalist interpretation of the First Amendment is only technically free speech, being in letter, but not the spirit of the law. But as I am wrestling with the ideas, I'm interested in what others have to say.
|
On March 04 2017 16:26 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 04 2017 15:07 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 12:59 Amui wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself? IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully. Right. So I agree you are not guaranteed any platform you would like. (I'll accept that correction from Danglar- you can demand it, but no one is obligated to give it.) But is it really free speech or freedom of expression if every time you spoke you were drowned out by shouts and chants? Are you really expressing freely? I'll take my second scenario: would we really consider it an acceptable amount of free speech afforded to non-binary/ gender fluid advocates if every-single-time they spoke, you couldn't hear because they were drowned out by chants or amplified white noise? Is that actually free speech? I'm just trying to drill down to what does free speech or free expression actually entail (which is very likely different from what the First Amendment does or does not do.) was going to write a response to this but realised that A. It's late and my brains not working well and B) to respond properly I'd probably need to write like an entire page of the argument since we're getting into philosophy and it's rather complicated. If I can manage to put my thoughts down well tomorrow I'll pm you. Like I said though, it will probably be rather long. Would be interested in reading it as well, and seems on-topic enough to post it in here?
I probably can do that. my brain cleared up a tiny bit so I don't think it will be ridiculously overly long.
|
On March 04 2017 16:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 04 2017 15:07 Falling wrote:On March 04 2017 12:59 Amui wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself? IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully. Right. So I agree you are not guaranteed any platform you would like. (I'll accept that correction from Danglar- you can demand it, but no one is obligated to give it.) But is it really free speech or freedom of expression if every time you spoke you were drowned out by shouts and chants? Are you really expressing freely? I'll take my second scenario: would we really consider it an acceptable amount of free speech afforded to non-binary/ gender fluid advocates if every-single-time they spoke, you couldn't hear because they were drowned out by chants or amplified white noise? Is that actually free speech? I'm just trying to drill down to what does free speech or free expression actually entail (which is very likely different from what the First Amendment does or does not do.) was going to write a response to this but realised that A. It's late and my brains not working well and B) to respond properly I'd probably need to write like an entire page of the argument since we're getting into philosophy and it's rather complicated. If I can manage to put my thoughts down well tomorrow I'll pm you. Like I said though, it will probably be rather long. I would be interested to hear it. I am asking these questions because I have am actually asking these questions in real life. A lot of what I thought I thought, I have been re-evaluating and I have started wondering if this very strict, literalist interpretation of the First Amendment is only technically free speech, being in letter, but not the spirit of the law. But as I am wrestling with the ideas, I'm interested in what others have to say.
Personally I would say that whatever interpretation you choose to put on the First Amendment or the Constitution in general should only be a lower bound on what you are prepared to do to safeguard liberties and the like. There's no reason why you can't exceed the Constitution in desirable directions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
