US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7038

On March 04 2017 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:


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 16:24 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.

On March 04 2017 16:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:

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 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.

On March 04 2017 16:32 Sermokala wrote:

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 16:32 Nebuchad wrote:


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 16:35 Aquanim wrote:

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 16:35 Sermokala wrote:

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 16:44 Nebuchad wrote:


I don't think it's authoritarian to expect correct ideas to succeed over incorrect ideas. Do you? I do see however how it's very useful for people who are consistently wrong about a ton of stuff to argue that a will to be right is authoritarian. Don't you?

As per "the way to make society better", it depends what you mean by that, and what other ways you oppose this way to.

On March 04 2017 16:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:






I'll reply to both here at once. I guess it's possible that the word 'regressive left' is something I've assigned a different meaning to than xDaunt and so am confused about why people say it doesn't exist.

Would not, from your posts, have categorized you (Nechubad) as 'regressive left'. Need to read some more of your posts and think about things a bit before replying further.

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]

On March 04 2017 16:57 Nebuchad wrote:


The "correct" definition of the regressive left is people who are so tolerant of other people that they end up defending intolerance (for example, being in favor of wahabism) out of a will to be supertolerant. That's what the word was invented to describe (by Maajid Nawaz, a fraud and a propagandist), and it was a strawman of the position that islam isn't the mother lode of evil because #notallmuslimsareextremists. Since it's a great word to attack people who identify as progressive, it has spread like wildfire and now means "people who are to the left of me and are generally evil for whatever reason" (see Sermokala above saying that people who aren't nice enough to gay-hating bigots are part of the regressive left which is almost the literal opposite of what the term was created to describe). I don't really know how you use it personnally but I'm part of most of the groups that have been targeted by the term.

On March 04 2017 17:13 Ghostcom wrote:


It depends on what you mean by "correct" and what you mean by "succeed". Until you have clarified those terms we wont really know, but either your statements is completely non-controversial or you are entering thought-police territory.

On March 04 2017 17:17 Nebuchad wrote:


That's not technically true. I obviously mean the non-controversial thing (as the terms are clear in themselves and I've clarified them in the past), but that's still a form of thought police.

On March 04 2017 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:

EDIT: Wikipedia:ing some though, it appears to be used more in line with how I interpreted it by some people at least.

On March 04 2017 05:11 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Can we not sully the name of punk by comparing it to conservatism, the least punk thing in the known universe?

People should protest the shit out of Milo. They should protest the shit out of the alt right, the KKK, neo-nazis, the WBC, anyone with abhorrent beliefs. Go shout them down and show them they're weak and pathetic. That's your first amendment in action. People do, and should protest awful people who hate monger, there's zero wrong with that, it's actually fantastic.

On March 04 2017 17:28 Ghostcom wrote:


I'm not going to shift through 7k pages to find that one nugget. Please clearly define those concepts when you make such a blanket statement. The terms are very far from clear - i.e. what is a "correct idea"?

On March 04 2017 17:26 Nebuchad wrote:


What? Oo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

In November 2015, in an appearance on the talk radio show The Humanist Hour, author and philosopher Peter Boghossian defined the term as a pejorative used to describe those on the left that have made the "strangest bedfellows" with the Islamists. According to him, the word "regressive" is used to contrast with the word "progressive" – the latter being the group that is egalitarian and wants to create systems of justice and racial equality, while the former being a group that "[looks] for the worst in people... and [does] not extend hermeneutics of charity, or a charitable interpretation of anything anyone says, but uses it as a hammer to beat people down". In addition, he believes that "regressive leftists" have become "hyper-moralists" and champions of their perceived victims. He cites the historical wrongdoings, such as slavery in the United States and colonialism as a legitimate concern that has caused mistrust of anything Western and capitalistic. He also added that "there are people who have suffered and still suffer legitimate instances of racism, homophobia etc. The problem is that every time the word racist is just thrown around like that, that word loses its meaning. And it should have quite a sting. That should be a horrible word".[22]

Political commentator David Pakman supported the concept in his talk show, saying "there are liberals who do use cultural relativism and distaste for US foreign policy as an excuse to defend or at least minimize violence and injustice that they would certainly otherwise oppose". He has distanced himself from the term, saying that it's misused by conservatives to insult all liberals.[26][27] Pakman suggests that the actual regressive leftists are leftists who use authoritarianism to enforce progressivism.[28]

On March 04 2017 16:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:


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 17:30 Nebuchad wrote:


Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

As an example, the idea that there aren't several definitions of "correct idea" is a correct idea.

On March 04 2017 17:31 Liquid`Jinro wrote:



and



Was how I had interpreted it without knowing the actual background behind the term.

On March 04 2017 17:36 Ghostcom wrote:


Thank you for defining what you mean. How are you going to evaluate whether an idea is correct or not? And are you certain that such an evaluation is objective?