|
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 November 02 2017 06:14 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. I remember back during the election, any criticism toward Hillary Clinton would result as "Hey you are just a sexist individual that doesn't want a woman in the office." And those same defenders of Hillary would goad other users by using insulting languages and when the other side fought back, you get warned/banned. On this thread, its pretty much open field on calling our President stupid, idiotic and people that attempt to justifies the POTUS' action as stupid, idiotic, and in some case, nonsensical without providing much of reasoning.
She did it, but thankfully most people here just ignored her faults and claimed she was morally better or less corrupt (obviously!) than Trump. It's a good sign of health that the perspective you identify wasn't in this forum and just was in NARAL/Women's March/media figures.
Now criticism of Obama being assigned to the fact that he's half-black. That one's alive and well.
|
On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin.
Nothing pisses me off more in this thread other then Euro posters coming and saying "lol the right sucks in america". Well libertarians but I usually get in a blind rage at seeing any of that shit that I don't remember who posts it.
|
United States42738 Posts
On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin.
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative.
|
Danglar I'll say that on social issues, between you and GreenHorizon I would be closer to your stance 70% of the time. In fact, I'd agree with GH very rarely on anything. However, on social issues The Economist Readers' Caucus has a problem with the current Republican party.
We tend to side with whichever stance leads to an outcome with more individual freedom. While we do recognize the autocratic tendencies of part of the left - who have an impulse to regulate and try to nudge society toward their progressive ideals - the evangelical wing of the Republican party is often a much greater threat to individual freedom. We fear the scripture-driven urge to regulate what people smoke,who they should have sex with, what sexual orientations are OK serve in the military, and so on. Roy Moore scares us way more than gender studies professors in liberal arts colleges. They aren't equivalent nutjobs - weighing the consequences of what exactly each of those sides defends, the former is much worse than the latter and seems to be closer to the republican centers of power than the 'sjw's are to the Democratic centers of power.
Our caucus tends to value social issues below economics and general competence of the candidates, however. We also have an aspirational view of the United States and it's place in the world - we believe the US should strive to keep alive the concepts of the american dream, being the beacon of freedom and so on. Even those of us not born in the US, are believers in American Exceptionalism. I could see a McCain or a Romney continuing to represent those values, as we saw Barack Obama represent well. Trump has the potential to kill and bury those concepts by relinquishing on American leadership on the world stage and in nearly every political stance representing the exact opposite of the defense of individual freedom. I think you underestimate the lasting consequences Trump might have not only on the Republican party but on the country.
|
On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin. You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative.
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. And I already clarified what I said twice -- once for GH and once for one of the other mods. Why am I not surprised that you are the one who still doesn't get it?
Just to cut to the chase: Look here and here.
|
On November 02 2017 06:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin. Nothing pisses me off more in this thread other then Euro posters coming and saying "lol the right sucks in america". Well libertarians but I usually get in a blind rage at seeing any of that shit that I don't remember who posts it.
Why does this annoy you?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Was gonna write something longer, can't say there's anything coherent to say to this scrambled mess of whatever this latest topic is. But I will say that the Noam Chomsky quote about fervent debate within a constrained list of approved topics seems to describe quite well a significant portion of how people discuss here. It's a sort of "we're in the right on X, Y, and Z, there is no room for debate here" when X, Y, and Z are by no means so clear cut that such a response is warranted. Frankly this strongly resembles a "you're not right-wing, I'm right wing, you're just extremists!" chain of grandstanding.
There's also a weird mix of not knowing any better than to just be so insistent about one's correctness that it's justified to shit on anyone and everyone that doesn't agree, and some sort of belief that, "come on, we're the good guys, why doesn't everybody see it that way?" Sure, not everyone falls into this pattern, but boy does it make it shitty to be anything but a part of the consensus.
There seems to be a need to find someone to paint as the villain. A constant need to find a foe who one can blame for things not always going one's way. But more productive and honest would be to simply look in a mirror.
|
On November 02 2017 06:51 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:46 Sermokala wrote:On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin. Nothing pisses me off more in this thread other then Euro posters coming and saying "lol the right sucks in america". Well libertarians but I usually get in a blind rage at seeing any of that shit that I don't remember who posts it. Why does this annoy you?
Because I can totally understand where they're coming from really. They're my shitty cousin that got the parents who weren't middle class and went through some hard shit but was deathly afraid of their kids going through the same thing and did the hard things to make sure they didn't. Now we're the one still dealing with slavery from 200 years ago and they're happy not dealing with the consequences of enslaving a bunch of people but we're suppose to feel even because I have the more immediate benefits despite having the more immediate issues from it. Now they feel that we have the same issues and wondering why we're struggling with them so much more because we didn't deal with our shit at a younger age like they did. But instead of understanding that we have much different issues that are so grounded in what we are that its almost impossible it seems to change them at our age they want to be shitty and just point and laugh at us, while we're still the reason why the neighbors don't just take all their shit like they wanted to when we were young.
|
United States42738 Posts
On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it.
On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research.
On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs.
You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it.
At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion.
|
On November 02 2017 06:50 warding wrote:
Danglar I'll say that on social issues, between you and GreenHorizon I would be closer to your stance 70% of the time. In fact, I'd agree with GH very rarely on anything. However, on social issues The Economist Readers' Caucus has a problem with the current Republican party.
We tend to side with whichever stance leads to an outcome with more individual freedom. While we do recognize the autocratic tendencies of part of the left - who have an impulse to regulate and try to nudge society toward their progressive ideals - the evangelical wing of the Republican party is often a much greater threat to individual freedom. We fear the scripture-driven urge to regulate what people smoke,who they should have sex with, what sexual orientations are OK serve in the military, and so on. Roy Moore scares us way more than gender studies professors in liberal arts colleges. They aren't equivalent nutjobs - weighing the consequences of what exactly each of those sides defends, the former is much worse than the latter and seems to be closer to the republican centers of power than the 'sjw's are to the Democratic centers of power.
Our caucus tends to value social issues below economics and general competence of the candidates, however. We also have an aspirational view of the United States and it's place in the world - we believe the US should strive to keep alive the concepts of the american dream, being the beacon of freedom and so on. Even those of us not born in the US, are believers in American Exceptionalism. I could see a McCain or a Romney continuing to represent those values, as we saw Barack Obama represent well. Trump has the potential to kill and bury those concepts by relinquishing on American leadership on the world stage and in nearly every political stance representing the exact opposite of the defense of individual freedom. I think you underestimate the lasting consequences Trump might have not only on the Republican party but on the country.
I also don't agree with The Economist's editorial stance on social issues. No surprise there. It didn't stop me from enjoying reading their columns for two years and I recently listened to a one-hour interview from one of their long time journalists.
I saw your laundry list of reasons why this forum's not as leftist as I allege. Almost to a single one you listed, I saw a distinct identification with the laziest sound bites and propaganda opinions that can be uttered on the subjects. That's the reason why I identified your points with the lefty person wanting to dismiss the entire conservative wing of the Republican party. I gather you read the posts, so you saw my first reply that covered similarly reactionary viewpoints expressed tersely.
Roy Moore isn't heading up some radical evangelical upsurge. The far greater threat is illiberality taught to college students of the next generation. That one's been gaining steam for a while and crackpots like Moore are a bible-belt Alabama phenomenon with little impact and little representation.
Trump does have the potential to hurt historical Republican values. I can agree with you there. He's not going to be called a conservative by Republican voters that matter. I had to weight that alongside Republican spinelessness in the face of media pressure, political correctness, an America first nationalist agenda rather than globalist corporatist agenda, and probably a couple others that I'm missing. McConnell and Boehner had/have lasting destructive influences on the country and America on the world stage as well. Ideally, Trump recenters GOP candidates around fighting back against poor characterizations so the next wave of leadership can see that passivity earns no brothers and emboldens the opposition to lie and smear. He has a danger present, less danger than Hillary on the world stage and for domestic issues, but also less than a Republican party that stands for nothing and fights for nothing.
With your backs to the wall, first you gain the inch, then you push for the yard and try to unify in the right direction. That's where I saw the Republican party in 2016 (confirmed with no Obamacare repeal despite frequent campaign ads). There's still a long way to go and it will definitely involve many lost seats from the current rudderless crew.
|
|
|
On November 02 2017 07:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs. You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it. At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion.
I believe his point is he never claimed they were conservative in name only, just RINO
|
United States42738 Posts
On November 02 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
The far greater threat is illiberality taught to college students of the next generation.
This is one of those things that doesn't exist outside of Fox News. Hell, the current conservative base are the liberal hippies that their older generation insisted would bring down society with their drugs, music, and sexual deviancy.
Colleges haven't changed, people not at college always insist that colleges are a hotbed of dangerous liberal ideas. They're really not.
It's a myth. You need to come back to reality.
|
They're a hotbed of dangerous liberal ideas In china though so you're wrong.
|
United States42738 Posts
On November 02 2017 07:19 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 07:14 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs. You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it. At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion. I believe his point is he never claimed they were conservative in name only, just RINO
If it is, he's lying more. He defined RINO as follows.On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:
I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. They're people who claim to be conservative on the campaign trail but do "other" (non conservative) stuff in Washington.
|
On November 02 2017 07:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
The far greater threat is illiberality taught to college students of the next generation. This is one of those things that doesn't exist outside of Fox News. Hell, the current conservative base are the liberal hippies that their older generation insisted would bring down society with their drugs, music, and sexual deviancy. Colleges haven't changed, people not at college always insist that colleges are a hotbed of dangerous liberal ideas. They're really not. It's a myth. You need to come back to reality.
It's the evergreen myth that colleges are brainwashing students to vote democrat. Nixon would be proud his legacy lives on.
|
For better understanding, I'd like to know what liberal ideas American universities teach that are threatening and/or what conservative ideas American universities aren't instilling to the next generation.
|
On November 02 2017 06:57 LegalLord wrote:
Was gonna write something longer, can't say there's anything coherent to say to this scrambled mess of whatever this latest topic is. But I will say that the Noam Chomsky quote about fervent debate within a constrained list of approved topics seems to describe quite well a significant portion of how people discuss here. It's a sort of "we're in the right on X, Y, and Z, there is no room for debate here" when X, Y, and Z are by no means so clear cut that such a response is warranted. Frankly this strongly resembles a "you're not right-wing, I'm right wing, you're just extremists!" chain of grandstanding.
There's also a weird mix of not knowing any better than to just be so insistent about one's correctness that it's justified to shit on anyone and everyone that doesn't agree, and some sort of belief that, "come on, we're the good guys, why doesn't everybody see it that way?" Sure, not everyone falls into this pattern, but boy does it make it shitty to be anything but a part of the consensus.
There seems to be a need to find someone to paint as the villain. A constant need to find a foe who one can blame for things not always going one's way. But more productive and honest would be to simply look in a mirror.
A professor at Middlebury wrote a couple blog posts defending the students that tried to stop Charles Murray from smpeaking. He said the acceptable range for political debate is between the non-racists and the anti-racists. That puts the people who decide what is and isn't racist in a seat of tremendous power.
It should have been patently obvious that excluding certain viewpoints and people from the debate led to shitty outcomes like Trump. The opposite path would have allowed whites to have valuable opinions on police brutality, straight people opinions on transgender bathroom policy, and the right to have opinions on things like immigration. I sense a center-leaning segment of the left is breaking away from the label-and-dismiss/berate crowd from certain articles that cropped up from the left (Lilla, recently Draper, I know xDaunt had another that I'm forgetting right now). They want to win elections in this country, but I suspect some gather they want a less divided country on the other side of them.
|
On November 02 2017 07:30 NeoIllusions wrote:
For better understanding, I'd like to know what liberal ideas American universities teach that are threatening and/or what conservative ideas American universities aren't instilling to the next generation.
Bible says god created the earth for man to dominate --> Climate change isn't real
Bible says god created humans directly, not through evolution --> Evolution isn't real
Kinda puts universities in a tough position.
|
Remember what I said yesterday about some posters harping on people that only their internet circle or their opposition care about?
"A professor at Middleburry" and "Charles Murray" fall squarely into that category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
