|
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 January 11 2018 12:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:21 IgnE wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:On January 11 2018 05:49 Danglars wrote:
And one lawyer on it (thread)
And they say Trump is uniquely dangerous to the constitutional process. He's practically a bit player in this drama if you ask me. Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? uh what's your interpretation then? full disclosure i had never heard of this triple parentheses thing until just now Just not Jewish, said humorously. Married Catholic lawyer and father of eight or nine. I like his legal, politics, and culture tweets. And, if it wasn’t obvious from conservative Jews citing his work, he’s a friend to the Jewish community.
lol anyone who treats their wife like a breeding facility isn't exactly someone I respect.
|
On January 12 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:40 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:21 IgnE wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? uh what's your interpretation then? full disclosure i had never heard of this triple parentheses thing until just now Just not Jewish, said humorously. Married Catholic lawyer and father of eight or nine. I like his legal, politics, and culture tweets. And, if it wasn’t obvious from conservative Jews citing his work, he’s a friend to the Jewish community. lol anyone who treats their wife like a breeding facility isn't exactly someone I respect.
Maybe it's the other way around, have some sympathy for the man!
|
On January 12 2018 01:05 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:58 zlefin wrote:On January 12 2018 00:55 bo1b wrote:
I don't want to engage in an argument at all though. Taking a position of superiority through intentionally missing the point, and arguing not against that point but instead minutiae is someone I do not want to have an argument with at all, ever, on a video game forum. ok, so you're goin to do the very thing you wrongfully accuse me of doing; by misrepresenting my argument (intentionally missin the point of it) to make yourself seem superior, noted. if you present a point, there's no problem with people pointing out serious flaws/failings in that point. it's also not minutiae that your examples do no tprove your thesis. If you're going to tell me that you understand the argument and it's really quite simple, then ask for a better comparison, then get given a better comparison with a timeline of events, then tell me the piece linked (which really should have been an obvious overview of exactly what I was talking about, as in something silly and maybe not even true being reported by enough high profile reporters as to have it's own blog) is the opposite of what was said, then yes I cannot be bothered conversing with you on the matter. I'm not writing bo1b's philosophy on modern political discourse, I'm making a tenuous comparison over a video game forum.
I did make very reasonable points; I don't have to ask for a better comparison, but that is one of many reasonable things I could do.
and your second example still didn' tprove your thesis; and I showed quite clearly why it did not.
what you're doin gis sloppy arguing, then getti ngangry when you're called out on the fact that you're wrong.
and you're ignorin the counterpoints and never ownin gup to the fact that you were wrong on several points.
like all of us, you're complaining about what the other guy did while ignoring your own screwups.
|
On January 12 2018 01:10 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:40 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:21 IgnE wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? uh what's your interpretation then? full disclosure i had never heard of this triple parentheses thing until just now Just not Jewish, said humorously. Married Catholic lawyer and father of eight or nine. I like his legal, politics, and culture tweets. And, if it wasn’t obvious from conservative Jews citing his work, he’s a friend to the Jewish community. lol anyone who treats their wife like a breeding facility isn't exactly someone I respect. Maybe it's the other way around, have some sympathy for the man!
Yeah, having lots of children does not need to have anything to do with some sort of macho chauvinism. Lots of people like children.
I dislike this idea of just assuming that the woman is a helpless victim without any evidence for that except the fact that she has lots of children. Treat women as people, not as fragile glass statues that constantly need to be protected by men.
|
On January 12 2018 01:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:05 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:58 zlefin wrote:On January 12 2018 00:55 bo1b wrote:
I don't want to engage in an argument at all though. Taking a position of superiority through intentionally missing the point, and arguing not against that point but instead minutiae is someone I do not want to have an argument with at all, ever, on a video game forum. ok, so you're goin to do the very thing you wrongfully accuse me of doing; by misrepresenting my argument (intentionally missin the point of it) to make yourself seem superior, noted. if you present a point, there's no problem with people pointing out serious flaws/failings in that point. it's also not minutiae that your examples do no tprove your thesis. If you're going to tell me that you understand the argument and it's really quite simple, then ask for a better comparison, then get given a better comparison with a timeline of events, then tell me the piece linked (which really should have been an obvious overview of exactly what I was talking about, as in something silly and maybe not even true being reported by enough high profile reporters as to have it's own blog) is the opposite of what was said, then yes I cannot be bothered conversing with you on the matter. I'm not writing bo1b's philosophy on modern political discourse, I'm making a tenuous comparison over a video game forum. I did make very reasonable points; I don't have to ask for a better comparison, but that is one of many reasonable things I could do. and your second example still didn' tprove your thesis; and I showed quite clearly why it did not. what you're doin gis sloppy arguing, then getti ngangry when you're called out on the fact that you're wrong. and you're ignorin the counterpoints and never ownin gup to the fact that you were wrong on several points. like all of us, you're complaining about what the other guy did while ignoring your own screwups.
I'm not angry at all, I'm indifferent. I said before I wasn't interested in arguing and I maintain that. Perhaps argument has a different philosophical term, but really a discussion was what was in mind. I'll agree the first link didn't provide a solid foundation for the comparison, I will not agree with that on the second - it should have been pretty obvious what was intended.
I hope you have a nice day though, it's quite late and I should be asleep.
|
On January 12 2018 00:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Imagine if a man had done this, the news media would be crucifying as we type. Show nested quote +
It started with a tweet on Tuesday afternoon.
By Wednesday morning, five writers were said to have pulled stories planned for future issues of Harper’s Magazine — an effort to pressure the magazine not to reveal the name of the woman who first assembled a Google spreadsheet listing men in the media industry accused of sexually inappropriate behavior.
And by Wednesday night, after hours of debate about the matter on social media, there was a surprising turn: The woman whose identity the campaign had sought to protect revealed herself in a first-person essay on New York magazine’s web vertical The Cut.
At issue was an article Harper’s had scheduled for the March edition written by the essayist Katie Roiphe. Writers and editors posted on Twitter that the article would reveal the identity of a person who had created the spreadsheet, first circulated in October, that identified men who were said to have acted in a predatory manner toward women.
[...]
Source
There's like 3-4 people in this article that are all equally the subject, it's entirely unclear who you are referring to.
|
On January 12 2018 00:13 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:07 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2018 23:56 bo1b wrote:On January 11 2018 23:49 Nebuchad wrote:On January 11 2018 23:41 bo1b wrote:
This is the attitude I really have a problem with, and have been unsuccessful in communicating over the last few pages. Moreover I completely believe you can win on the high ground in the era of Trump. The left gives up so much ammo to those that oppose them with the combination of self righteousness and hypocrisy. If the specific target that we're trying to "win" against is someone who still supports Trump today, I'm genuinely interested in how you think we can achieve that. Consistent high quality reporting and presenting a candidate who appeals to those in the center, bonus points for a lick of charisma and someone who doesn't go out of their way to pander at all costs. There is a reason that this election had such low voter turnout. If Trump was unbeatable he wouldn't have barely won and in fact lost the popular election. If that white house insider book is to believed at all, not even Trump expected to win. So yeh, I completely believe that you can win without going as low as you can. That is a pretty bad strategy for these times, and moreover it's basically already been tried: appealing to the center was what Schumer and Clinton were trying to do. It also appears to be self-serving, if I'm not mistaken, since you seem to be part of this "center". But anyway, I was thinking we were on a more personal level, I thought we were the ones not trying to take the high ground, rather than the media and politicians. I can't really influence what the media is doing, but I can influence how I behave with Trump supporters, and I certainly can't think of a "high ground" way to reach them. I think you have 3 years to reach them right? I'd put money that there are a number of trump supporters who exist solely because of poor behaviors from the other side. If we take it as a granted that x% of people are going to vote one way or the other no matter what then swing voters are the only ones that matter. Taking the high ground to me does not mean not becoming frustrated or angry or whatever, it means being the reasonable choice out of the two. No riots on campuses, no memes disguised as news, sensationalised headlines being passed around need to stop, and really having the decency to not look at your opponent as being mentally defective while you ignore all the faults of your own team. Apart from all of that, don't stats show Trump support is falling month by month? The center is what the vast majority of people fall into, with very good reason historically. Clinton's big mistake wasn't appealing to the center but pandering to people outside of it, and making people who weren't so informed have a tough time to choose. Guess I am self serving, can't argue against that, I think pretty much everyone is.
It was a very close election. I expect them to do very little outreach in the form of being less shitty, and more trying to drive out their base with a likable candidate. They'll probably take a bunch of seats in the house (and lose 0-2 in the Senate) encouraging the same behavior with a different candidate.
|
On January 12 2018 01:08 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:04 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:57 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:54 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:45 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:
edit: I'd like to know in what ways you think the west is moving to the left economically; I'd say you're right socially but economically... not quite. I could be wrong, but I'd argue the steady move towards free trade agreements, the move over the last presidency away from supply side economics for short term changes. For long term changes it's a bit of a stretch but we've changed literal colonialism to "merely" disrupting a region to put into power the people we want. On the social side of economics, welfare is obviously continuing to trend upwards over the long term, taxes are getting somewhat higher I believe. On January 12 2018 00:43 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:39 bo1b wrote:
I didn't tell you why I thought Clinton lost until just now, as we weren't discussing it. In fact, I'm not sure I really said anything about Clinton so much as I did the left leaning media and it's followers.
For every far right faction you have theirs another group of people protesting stupid things at universities and safe spaces being formed.
I'll tell you my belief on that as well, in that it's not the center being pulled to the right, but the center being stretched to two extremes. You did write "Clinton's big mistake wasn't appealing to the center but pandering to people outside of it". My interpretation was that this is why she lost, since it was her "big mistake". People protesting at universities are totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, so much so that it borders on whataboutism. You can't bring up the rise of the far right then ignore the rise of the far left occuring at universities. It's not whataboutism. Do SJWs in universities get a 25-30% voting bloc in most of the Western world, if not higher in some places? Are there SJW governments the same way there is Hungary or Poland or the US? Cause that wasn't quite my impression, and if there aren't, they aren't quite comparable to the far right, are they. If free trade agreements are economically leftwing, I rest my case that the west isn't moving to the left economically... That's a liberal policy if I've ever seen one. I'd argue there are absolutely social democratic governments around Scandinavian Europe. Places like Sweden come to mind. It makes no sense to me that a world getting more progressive socially in pretty much every way would be doing the opposite economically. Social democratic isn't a synonym of SJW last time I checked. It makes no sense to you but it should. Economic policy and social policy are only tangentially related. If you're extremely liberal socially, if you want everyone treated with respect no matter their race or sexual orientation, it doesn't tell me whether you're a marxist or a staunch liberal. If you look at this very forum you'll find a few examples of people who are economically leftwing but not super liberal socially, specifically jockmcplop and a_flayer. Out of interest, do you think that over the last 50 years or so we have moved towards the right end of the spectrum economically? Actually we could be looking at different time frames, what time frame are you looking at right now. If it's just the last 2-3 years then I agree with you.
That is my perception, yeah. Most social democratic parties tend to the center economically more than they tend to the left nowadays, and it's fairly rare that a country has a very developed far left, France, Greece, (Spain?)... There could be another shift in the near future though, with the Corbyn vs Milliband effect; but I don't think we're quite there yet.
|
On January 12 2018 01:16 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:13 zlefin wrote:On January 12 2018 01:05 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:58 zlefin wrote:On January 12 2018 00:55 bo1b wrote:
I don't want to engage in an argument at all though. Taking a position of superiority through intentionally missing the point, and arguing not against that point but instead minutiae is someone I do not want to have an argument with at all, ever, on a video game forum. ok, so you're goin to do the very thing you wrongfully accuse me of doing; by misrepresenting my argument (intentionally missin the point of it) to make yourself seem superior, noted. if you present a point, there's no problem with people pointing out serious flaws/failings in that point. it's also not minutiae that your examples do no tprove your thesis. If you're going to tell me that you understand the argument and it's really quite simple, then ask for a better comparison, then get given a better comparison with a timeline of events, then tell me the piece linked (which really should have been an obvious overview of exactly what I was talking about, as in something silly and maybe not even true being reported by enough high profile reporters as to have it's own blog) is the opposite of what was said, then yes I cannot be bothered conversing with you on the matter. I'm not writing bo1b's philosophy on modern political discourse, I'm making a tenuous comparison over a video game forum. I did make very reasonable points; I don't have to ask for a better comparison, but that is one of many reasonable things I could do. and your second example still didn' tprove your thesis; and I showed quite clearly why it did not. what you're doin gis sloppy arguing, then getti ngangry when you're called out on the fact that you're wrong. and you're ignorin the counterpoints and never ownin gup to the fact that you were wrong on several points. like all of us, you're complaining about what the other guy did while ignoring your own screwups. I'm not angry at all, I'm indifferent. I said before I wasn't interested in arguing and I maintain that. Perhaps argument has a different philosophical term, but really a discussion was what was in mind. I'll agree the first link didn't provide a solid foundation for the comparison, I will not agree with that on the second - it should have been pretty obvious what was intended. I hope you have a nice day though, it's quite late and I should be asleep.
the second didn't; it did not establish that ACTUAL reporting was done on the gorilla thing; only that twitter feeds sloppily retweeted it. that's very different from actual reporting. There's also again a very big difference between reporting on the thing as if it's true and matters, and reporting on the topic to correct a mistake many people were making.
I thank you for agreeing the first link had issues.
I hope you have a nice day as well.
|
On January 12 2018 01:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:08 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 01:04 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:57 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:54 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:45 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:
edit: I'd like to know in what ways you think the west is moving to the left economically; I'd say you're right socially but economically... not quite. I could be wrong, but I'd argue the steady move towards free trade agreements, the move over the last presidency away from supply side economics for short term changes. For long term changes it's a bit of a stretch but we've changed literal colonialism to "merely" disrupting a region to put into power the people we want. On the social side of economics, welfare is obviously continuing to trend upwards over the long term, taxes are getting somewhat higher I believe. On January 12 2018 00:43 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:39 bo1b wrote:
I didn't tell you why I thought Clinton lost until just now, as we weren't discussing it. In fact, I'm not sure I really said anything about Clinton so much as I did the left leaning media and it's followers.
For every far right faction you have theirs another group of people protesting stupid things at universities and safe spaces being formed.
I'll tell you my belief on that as well, in that it's not the center being pulled to the right, but the center being stretched to two extremes. You did write "Clinton's big mistake wasn't appealing to the center but pandering to people outside of it". My interpretation was that this is why she lost, since it was her "big mistake". People protesting at universities are totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, so much so that it borders on whataboutism. You can't bring up the rise of the far right then ignore the rise of the far left occuring at universities. It's not whataboutism. Do SJWs in universities get a 25-30% voting bloc in most of the Western world, if not higher in some places? Are there SJW governments the same way there is Hungary or Poland or the US? Cause that wasn't quite my impression, and if there aren't, they aren't quite comparable to the far right, are they. If free trade agreements are economically leftwing, I rest my case that the west isn't moving to the left economically... That's a liberal policy if I've ever seen one. I'd argue there are absolutely social democratic governments around Scandinavian Europe. Places like Sweden come to mind. It makes no sense to me that a world getting more progressive socially in pretty much every way would be doing the opposite economically. Social democratic isn't a synonym of SJW last time I checked. It makes no sense to you but it should. Economic policy and social policy are only tangentially related. If you're extremely liberal socially, if you want everyone treated with respect no matter their race or sexual orientation, it doesn't tell me whether you're a marxist or a staunch liberal. If you look at this very forum you'll find a few examples of people who are economically leftwing but not super liberal socially, specifically jockmcplop and a_flayer. Out of interest, do you think that over the last 50 years or so we have moved towards the right end of the spectrum economically? Actually we could be looking at different time frames, what time frame are you looking at right now. If it's just the last 2-3 years then I agree with you. That is my perception, yeah. Most social democratic parties tend to the center economically more than they tend to the left nowadays, and it's fairly rare that a country has a very developed far left, France, Greece, (Spain?)... There could be another shift in the near future though, with the Corbyn vs Milliband effect; but I don't think we're quite there yet.
You know in some ways I think you're right, I actually completely forgot about several key things that occurred over that time period, such as the fall of the soviet union and other communistic parties - nothing major or anything  .
In my defense I was focusing on the United States, not the whole world.
|
On January 12 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 12:40 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:21 IgnE wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? uh what's your interpretation then? full disclosure i had never heard of this triple parentheses thing until just now Just not Jewish, said humorously. Married Catholic lawyer and father of eight or nine. I like his legal, politics, and culture tweets. And, if it wasn’t obvious from conservative Jews citing his work, he’s a friend to the Jewish community. lol anyone who treats their wife like a breeding facility isn't exactly someone I respect.
And if they both want a lot of kids? Seriously, this is as bad as saying women treat their husbands like a walking bank account. Let's allow for alternative lifestyles a little more.
|
On January 12 2018 01:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:09 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2018 12:40 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:21 IgnE wrote:On January 11 2018 12:06 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 12:02 Gahlo wrote:On January 11 2018 11:58 Danglars wrote:On January 11 2018 11:47 Herpin_Along wrote:Did.....did you just quote a dude with a twitter name that basically says "jews are not equal"? You're presuming quite a bit from that emoji. That's time better spent reading the thread and commenting as others have. Also picked up by NRO. (Josh Blackman wrote a separate piece). It's almost like words and symbols have meanings. Internet poster: This emoji is intended to read "jews are not equal" Gahlo: Any skepticism in this case is an assault on the meaning of words and symbols. Has Trump taught you to assume antisemitism/alt-right radicalism in quoted tweets from someone right-of-center? uh what's your interpretation then? full disclosure i had never heard of this triple parentheses thing until just now Just not Jewish, said humorously. Married Catholic lawyer and father of eight or nine. I like his legal, politics, and culture tweets. And, if it wasn’t obvious from conservative Jews citing his work, he’s a friend to the Jewish community. lol anyone who treats their wife like a breeding facility isn't exactly someone I respect. And if they both want a lot of kids? Seriously, this is as bad as saying women treat their husbands like a walking bank account. Let's allow for alternative lifestyles a little more.
Well, I wouldn't say my feelings are any more positive towards a woman wanting that either. But probably not a worthwhile divergence from actual politics.
|
Yeah, and it's not like the woman doesn't have a say in getting more children or anything..
What's the problem in wanting a lot of children?
|
Probably not a worthwhile subject to continue. I have no interest in arguing him out of his default judgement on large families.
|
There's a lot of angles to look at it and, honestly, they aren't worth the time discussing unless his wife brings up allegations.
|
On January 12 2018 01:44 Uldridge wrote:
Yeah, and it's not like the woman doesn't have a say in getting more children or anything..
What's the problem in wanting a lot of children?
Well, depending on the type of Catholic she is, it may be between having as many kids as her husband wants or spending eternity suffering in the worst place imaginable separated from everyone she's ever loved forever, which is hardly a real choice.
But it's only relevant in situations like how almost every sexually active woman uses birth control at some point but a large proportion of them will vote to ban it. Or the many white women (a majority in fact) in Alabama that voted for the guy who thought things were better when they couldn't vote.
EDIT: Sometimes I accidentally remind myself how hopeless some of this seems when if white women were the only voters in Alabama Roy Moore would have won.
That's why electing people who look like you or sex like you or whatever isn't enough. White women voted for someone, who if he could with a wave of a wand, would take away their right to vote.
|
On January 12 2018 01:00 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 00:51 Plansix wrote:
Poorly thought out protest as universities is a post WW2 American tradition and nothing new. Funny enough, Nixon is the one who really started to slam the higher education for being overly “liberal” and filled with hippies. It is a narrative that pre-dates most of us. I'm sure that the Ancient Romans had their version of it too.
Hey, you made the claim that the far left and wild, unreasonable protests was somehow a new thing in universities in the US. I just pointed out that the 1960s and 1970s existed people made the exact same argument. That argument is almost 70 years old at this point. If not older.
|
But even back then the most extreme voices were the loudest and worst. Ffs the german hardcore 68ers had "seeing children as sexual persons" on their banner... Let alone their total inability to see anything bad with the UDSSR, Mao and other truely horrible communist dictatorships.
All in all the movement was very good. Alltogether todays is too but the fringes are not in any way responsible for this, most likely they hurt more than they help.
|
On January 12 2018 01:08 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 01:04 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:57 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:54 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:45 bo1b wrote:On January 12 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:
edit: I'd like to know in what ways you think the west is moving to the left economically; I'd say you're right socially but economically... not quite. I could be wrong, but I'd argue the steady move towards free trade agreements, the move over the last presidency away from supply side economics for short term changes. For long term changes it's a bit of a stretch but we've changed literal colonialism to "merely" disrupting a region to put into power the people we want. On the social side of economics, welfare is obviously continuing to trend upwards over the long term, taxes are getting somewhat higher I believe. On January 12 2018 00:43 Nebuchad wrote:On January 12 2018 00:39 bo1b wrote:
I didn't tell you why I thought Clinton lost until just now, as we weren't discussing it. In fact, I'm not sure I really said anything about Clinton so much as I did the left leaning media and it's followers.
For every far right faction you have theirs another group of people protesting stupid things at universities and safe spaces being formed.
I'll tell you my belief on that as well, in that it's not the center being pulled to the right, but the center being stretched to two extremes. You did write "Clinton's big mistake wasn't appealing to the center but pandering to people outside of it". My interpretation was that this is why she lost, since it was her "big mistake". People protesting at universities are totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, so much so that it borders on whataboutism. You can't bring up the rise of the far right then ignore the rise of the far left occuring at universities. It's not whataboutism. Do SJWs in universities get a 25-30% voting bloc in most of the Western world, if not higher in some places? Are there SJW governments the same way there is Hungary or Poland or the US? Cause that wasn't quite my impression, and if there aren't, they aren't quite comparable to the far right, are they. If free trade agreements are economically leftwing, I rest my case that the west isn't moving to the left economically... That's a liberal policy if I've ever seen one. I'd argue there are absolutely social democratic governments around Scandinavian Europe. Places like Sweden come to mind. It makes no sense to me that a world getting more progressive socially in pretty much every way would be doing the opposite economically. Social democratic isn't a synonym of SJW last time I checked. It makes no sense to you but it should. Economic policy and social policy are only tangentially related. If you're extremely liberal socially, if you want everyone treated with respect no matter their race or sexual orientation, it doesn't tell me whether you're a marxist or a staunch liberal. If you look at this very forum you'll find a few examples of people who are economically leftwing but not super liberal socially, specifically jockmcplop and a_flayer. Out of interest, do you think that over the last 50 years or so we have moved towards the right end of the spectrum economically? Actually we could be looking at different time frames, what time frame are you looking at right now. If it's just the last 2-3 years then I agree with you.
so since 1968? yes. we've moved right economically
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
