|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 17 2020 06:42 stilt wrote:
At this point, fascist is just a generic term to describe the right/far right, while some european parties can be described at such, it's not really the case in usa where even the us white supremacist groups revendicates individualism and most if not all, of them are extremely defiants toward the state. You can argue that Trump is fascist-like because of his populist rhetoric and manners but calling him and his supporters fascists is just the wrong use of word.
How much of that is their ideology and how much of that is just lip service though? A lot of individuals in these groups show pretty profound deference to authority within their own circles, they're just defiant toward the state as it exists right now. They're not fundamentally against a powerful government, they're just against the US government as it currently exists being powerful.
|
On December 16 2020 20:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess. I think your statement that "the left has won the long game" depends on what kind of game we're looking at. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that some conservative values are going to be preserved for a reasonably long period of time, given Trump's and McConnell's influence over the Supreme Court. That being said, to quote the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well known liberal bias", and the slow push leftward is something that happens anyway, regardless of who is in power. Also, what do you mean by "trump is a trojan horse by the left"? Do you mean that attacking Trump is mistakenly attacking a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying, fundamental issues that should be solved? Or do you mean that Trump is somehow a puppet of the left / useful idiot for the left?
Liberalism as defined by progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings) is not "reality". Y'all are so arrogant (and often oblivious to basic facts).
If leftward is deterministic I don't understand all the hubbaloo about Trump here. It's obvious you don't believe that canard by your other writings and actions. This hubris is why you guys lose all the time. The state of US politics is basically two elementary school bullies trying to pummel each other while trying to make it to the top of the playground to boss everyone around. Its pathetic.
|
On December 17 2020 13:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2020 20:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess. I think your statement that "the left has won the long game" depends on what kind of game we're looking at. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that some conservative values are going to be preserved for a reasonably long period of time, given Trump's and McConnell's influence over the Supreme Court. That being said, to quote the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well known liberal bias", and the slow push leftward is something that happens anyway, regardless of who is in power. Also, what do you mean by "trump is a trojan horse by the left"? Do you mean that attacking Trump is mistakenly attacking a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying, fundamental issues that should be solved? Or do you mean that Trump is somehow a puppet of the left / useful idiot for the left? Liberalism as defined by progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings) is not "reality". Y'all are so arrogant (and often oblivious to basic facts). If leftward is deterministic I don't understand all the hubbaloo about Trump here. It's obvious you don't believe that canard by your other writings and actions. This hubris is why you guys lose all the time. The state of US politics is basically two elementary school bullies trying to pummel each other while trying to make it to the top of the playground to boss everyone around. Its pathetic.
Who are these 'you guys' that are 'losing all the time'? For all the failings of the 'establishment left' in the US, just about every country in the world (US included) has been steadily drifting leftwards in the progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings, to borrow your terminology) sense. And since you've used the word 'losing' here, I'm actually curious what would constitute as a victory for the conservatives. Is it things like getting Trump elected? Was the war in Iraq a victory for the other side of 'you guys'? Who and how is winning here?
|
On December 17 2020 14:02 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2020 13:07 Wegandi wrote:On December 16 2020 20:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess. I think your statement that "the left has won the long game" depends on what kind of game we're looking at. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that some conservative values are going to be preserved for a reasonably long period of time, given Trump's and McConnell's influence over the Supreme Court. That being said, to quote the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well known liberal bias", and the slow push leftward is something that happens anyway, regardless of who is in power. Also, what do you mean by "trump is a trojan horse by the left"? Do you mean that attacking Trump is mistakenly attacking a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying, fundamental issues that should be solved? Or do you mean that Trump is somehow a puppet of the left / useful idiot for the left? Liberalism as defined by progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings) is not "reality". Y'all are so arrogant (and often oblivious to basic facts). If leftward is deterministic I don't understand all the hubbaloo about Trump here. It's obvious you don't believe that canard by your other writings and actions. This hubris is why you guys lose all the time. The state of US politics is basically two elementary school bullies trying to pummel each other while trying to make it to the top of the playground to boss everyone around. Its pathetic. Who are these 'you guys' that are 'losing all the time'? For all the failings of the 'establishment left' in the US, just about every country in the world (US included) has been steadily drifting leftwards in the progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings, to borrow your terminology) sense. And since you've used the word 'losing' here, I'm actually curious what would constitute as a victory for the conservatives. Is it things like getting Trump elected? Was the war in Iraq a victory for the other side of 'you guys'? Who and how is winning here?
Its funny you think Im a conservative, support trump, or the Iraq war. Maybe you should look up Albert Jay Nock, Howard Buffett, Moorefield Storey, Rose Wilder, etc. for where I am politically.
Its also funny you think recent leftist drift (I'd argue thats not what actually happened..look around the world - after the USSR fell specifically) is the same as deterministic certainty. For the record my side has been losing since the 1930s / Calvin Coolidge & Grover Cleveland.
|
Just for the record, "leftist" is another word I have major issues with, as "leftist" is usually used by the right-wing to discredit their opponents. The most accurate equivalent to "fascist" used by the right is probably "marxist". ABB rebranded the Norwegian labour party as "cultural marxists" and "multiculturalists" to legitimize his terror attacks. McCarthy also made a career accusing opponents of communism. There are fringe groups and even regimes of the past defining themselves as "communitsts" and "marxists", but just as "fascist", I think the terms should be skipped in political debates except for in very rare cases
When using political terms in debates with opposing points of view, I think the best way to maintain a respectful tone is to use the definitions used by your opponent. There is a Norwegian party called the "socialistic left-party", so using "socialists" when adressing them is completely fine. Same goes with liberal, conservative, progressive, market-liberal etc.
"Calling someone a racist wont unracist a racist". The same goes for assumed communists, marxists and fascists.
|
On December 17 2020 17:43 Slydie wrote:
Just for the record, "leftist" is another word I have major issues with, as "leftist" is usually used by the right-wing to discredit their opponents. The most accurate equivalent to "fascist" used by the right is probably "marxist". ABB rebranded the Norwegian labour party as "cultural marxists" and "multiculturalists" to legitimize his terror attacks. McCarthy also made a career accusing opponents of communism. There are fringe groups and even regimes of the past defining themselves as "communitsts" and "marxists", but just as "fascist", I think the terms should be skipped in political debates except for in very rare cases
When using political terms in debates with opposing points of view, I think the best way to maintain a respectful tone is to use the definitions used by your opponent. There is a Norwegian party called the "socialistic left-party", so using "socialists" when adressing them is completely fine. Same goes with liberal, conservative, progressive, market-liberal etc.
"Calling someone a racist wont unracist a racist". The same goes for assumed communists, marxists and fascists.
I don't quite follow you here Slydie. I don't have any problem in being called a leftist. It's true, and the concept of leftism is intellectually sound. If some people want to make it an insult, it's their problem.
The problem with the terms "cultural-marxist" or "globalist" is not that they are insults or that they are not acknowledged by the ones they are meant to describe; it's that they are really stupid concepts with no content whatsoever. "Cultural marxist" as used by the alt-right means nothing else than some vague conspiracy theory and has absolutely nothing to do with actual cultural marxism (it is a thing) and even less with actual marxism. Same goes with "globalist". I'm not offended when people call me one or the other, just informed they are complete morons.
Where I agree with both you and Drone is that frontally attacking people is not a great way to go forward in a debate; in that respect I think labelling ideas rather than people is a good idea. I prefer "-isms" to "-ists".
So while I think we should be able to discuss the fact that Trumpism is a proto-fascist movement (it is and we should talk about it) maybe we can refrain from telling Danglar he is a fascist. It's his business how he wants to position himself towards a fascist movement and the consequences that derive from that position.
|
On December 17 2020 17:43 Slydie wrote:
Just for the record, "leftist" is another word I have major issues with, as "leftist" is usually used by the right-wing to discredit their opponents. The most accurate equivalent to "fascist" used by the right is probably "marxist". ABB rebranded the Norwegian labour party as "cultural marxists" and "multiculturalists" to legitimize his terror attacks. McCarthy also made a career accusing opponents of communism. There are fringe groups and even regimes of the past defining themselves as "communitsts" and "marxists", but just as "fascist", I think the terms should be skipped in political debates except for in very rare cases
When using political terms in debates with opposing points of view, I think the best way to maintain a respectful tone is to use the definitions used by your opponent. There is a Norwegian party called the "socialistic left-party", so using "socialists" when adressing them is completely fine. Same goes with liberal, conservative, progressive, market-liberal etc.
"Calling someone a racist wont unracist a racist". The same goes for assumed communists, marxists and fascists.
I think there's a difference between assessing if a label accurately describes a person, and calling them that label when trying to change their mind. I agree that simply calling a racist "racist" isn't going to change their attitude, but that's not the same thing as insisting that the label "racist" has an ambiguous meaning or might not accurately depict an actual racist.
|
On December 17 2020 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2020 17:43 Slydie wrote:
Just for the record, "leftist" is another word I have major issues with, as "leftist" is usually used by the right-wing to discredit their opponents. The most accurate equivalent to "fascist" used by the right is probably "marxist". ABB rebranded the Norwegian labour party as "cultural marxists" and "multiculturalists" to legitimize his terror attacks. McCarthy also made a career accusing opponents of communism. There are fringe groups and even regimes of the past defining themselves as "communitsts" and "marxists", but just as "fascist", I think the terms should be skipped in political debates except for in very rare cases
When using political terms in debates with opposing points of view, I think the best way to maintain a respectful tone is to use the definitions used by your opponent. There is a Norwegian party called the "socialistic left-party", so using "socialists" when adressing them is completely fine. Same goes with liberal, conservative, progressive, market-liberal etc.
"Calling someone a racist wont unracist a racist". The same goes for assumed communists, marxists and fascists. I think there's a difference between assessing if a label accurately describes a person, and calling them that label when trying to change their mind. I agree that simply calling a racist "racist" isn't going to change their attitude, but that's not the same thing as insisting that the label "racist" has an ambiguous meaning or might not accurately depict an actual racist.
Yeah labelling people in general doesn't help at all. It's better to label ideas or even attitudes. "What you say is racist" has a chance of advancing a discussion, "you are a racist" does not.
Reminds me when GH and LegalLord (I think) went on and on insisting that I was a "neoliberal". It might have been the one most stupid discussion I have been involved in on this website.
|
There are problems inherent with language when the word used has different meaning to different users. Labels are useful only so much as the group can using them can agree on common defintions, or if not defintions a common set of ideals that it can be applied to. Some can be applied, some cannot, and some which formerly had distinct meanings are in the process of being distorted. The only real way to find out is whether they are being used pejoritively.
Hence "y'all on the left" isn't refering to left wing politics, it is a call to disparage. Hence "libs" is devoid of meaning. Others however are in the process of being distorted such as "facism", which I thought was a fairly clear brand of authoritarian nationalism that places the idealogy of tying nation to ethnicity and elevating that ethnicity and nation above all using, but apparently not as fascist supporters try to blur it's meaning for their own ends. Most famously Putin in regards to Crimea.
"Racist" doesn't meet that criteria. It remains a useful descriptor, even though racists rarely admit they are racist. They will instead insist that their racist views are true.
|
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On December 17 2020 22:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There are problems inherent with language when the word used has different meaning to different users. Labels are useful only so much as the group can using them can agree on common defintions, or if not defintions a common set of ideals that it can be applied to. Some can be applied, some cannot, and some which formerly had distinct meanings are in the process of being distorted. The only real way to find out is whether they are being used pejoritively.
Hence "y'all on the left" isn't refering to left wing politics, it is a call to disparage. Hence "libs" is devoid of meaning. Others however are in the process of being distorted such as "facism", which I thought was a fairly clear brand of authoritarian nationalism that places the idealogy of tying nation to ethnicity and elevating that ethnicity and nation above all using, but apparently not as fascist supporters try to blur it's meaning for their own ends. Most famously Putin in regards to Crimea.
"Racist" doesn't meet that criteria. It remains a useful descriptor, even though racists rarely admit they are racist. They will instead insist that their racist views are true.
Some terms are innately malleable, some less so.
Leftist, right-wing, centrist are all relativistic spots on an axis that is in flux over time, so they’ll change both with the times and the perceptions of individual people.
Fascism, socialism, Communism are ideological doctrines with certain tenets that are individually definable without reference to other dimensions of the political climate at any specific time or place.
That people rampantly misuse descriptors doesn’t, or shouldn’t dilute their meaning, they’re just using them wrong.
In a sense modern facism has evolved into a pan-national thing that unites across the having white skin line, and the idea of a superior white Western culture has supplanted say the superiority of the Aryan nation.
The seemingly contradictory idea of hyper nationalism with a lot of international cooperation between far right groups makes much more sense if this shift is accounted for.
|
On December 17 2020 14:02 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2020 13:07 Wegandi wrote:On December 16 2020 20:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
MAGAs truly live in a different world. They are all celebrating today, saying the second sets of electors sent by various states will guarantee Trump has another 4 years. Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win. The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess. I think your statement that "the left has won the long game" depends on what kind of game we're looking at. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that some conservative values are going to be preserved for a reasonably long period of time, given Trump's and McConnell's influence over the Supreme Court. That being said, to quote the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well known liberal bias", and the slow push leftward is something that happens anyway, regardless of who is in power. Also, what do you mean by "trump is a trojan horse by the left"? Do you mean that attacking Trump is mistakenly attacking a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying, fundamental issues that should be solved? Or do you mean that Trump is somehow a puppet of the left / useful idiot for the left? Liberalism as defined by progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings) is not "reality". Y'all are so arrogant (and often oblivious to basic facts). If leftward is deterministic I don't understand all the hubbaloo about Trump here. It's obvious you don't believe that canard by your other writings and actions. This hubris is why you guys lose all the time. The state of US politics is basically two elementary school bullies trying to pummel each other while trying to make it to the top of the playground to boss everyone around. Its pathetic. Who are these 'you guys' that are 'losing all the time'? For all the failings of the 'establishment left' in the US, just about every country in the world (US included) has been steadily drifting leftwards in the progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings, to borrow your terminology) sense. And since you've used the word 'losing' here, I'm actually curious what would constitute as a victory for the conservatives. Is it things like getting Trump elected? Was the war in Iraq a victory for the other side of 'you guys'? Who and how is winning here?
It sounds like we need a thread symposium on who libertarians are and what they typically believe. Just because he finds cause to disagree with most everybody in the thread does not lump him in with the conservatives by opposition.
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of word purism. Distortion is the primary driving force of language, it's not something that needs to be solved. There's never any shortage of terms when one becomes unrecognizable.
|
On December 17 2020 17:43 Slydie wrote:
Just for the record, "leftist" is another word I have major issues with, as "leftist" is usually used by the right-wing to discredit their opponents.
Just for the record, leftists try to discredit people to the right of them by calling them right-wing. People like Jesse Singal or a host of other figures on the left are routinely called right-wing for disagreeing with orthodoxies on issues like abortion, gun rights, transgender issues, or intelligence community issues.
The most accurate equivalent to "fascist" used by the right is probably "marxist". ABB rebranded the Norwegian labour party as "cultural marxists" and "multiculturalists" to legitimize his terror attacks. McCarthy also made a career accusing opponents of communism. There are fringe groups and even regimes of the past defining themselves as "communitsts" and "marxists", but just as "fascist", I think the terms should be skipped in political debates except for in very rare cases
When using political terms in debates with opposing points of view, I think the best way to maintain a respectful tone is to use the definitions used by your opponent. There is a Norwegian party called the "socialistic left-party", so using "socialists" when adressing them is completely fine. Same goes with liberal, conservative, progressive, market-liberal etc.
"Calling someone a racist wont unracist a racist". The same goes for assumed communists, marxists and fascists.
I support your stance on trending more to respectful tones when dealing with ideological opponents. Act as if they also are concerned about the future of the country, a healthy society, peace, and freedom, even if you're intent on pointing out that their policies would achieve the exact opposite on every score. And if posters resort to pejorative labels in most engagements, just stop engaging.
The state of play in the US is probably lost to some sort of rapprochement on labels. It's lost because the "political right" has had their candidates called fascists and racists for decades, so even if the conversation were to change in treatment, people on the right or center have an idea that they are somewhere between looked down upon and outright despised in left-leaning society. Queue the chorus that says "but they're fascists and racists and we have to defeat these Trump voters and call them what they really are to prevent the second coming of the brown shirts overthrowing Democracy." Yeah yeah, democracy is great but you'll drop the scthick on reasoned arguments and voting your preferences when you lose an election and pick lies to understand why.
Really, too much is made of an essentially binary choice presented every 4 years. Voter's leanings and ideology is much more nuanced than the political candidates put forward every 2, 4, or 6 years. I have deep problems with thread-normal disparagement and defense of the disparaging terms for politically different American citizens. People are more than binary political choices at the election box. Liquid'Drone already brought it up, but there's an absurd level of political stupidity in judging the hundreds of counties that Obama won twice, and then voted Trump in some kind of "We just decided to be racist and fascist now, yay!" Are you really into understanding America? Start re-examining your presuppositions. The Republican party just sent the most diverse group of women, minorities, and veterans to deal Pelosi a major setback in her (now slim) majority, and some people cling to stale, angry rhetoric of bigoted enemies very different than their own moral selves.
|
|
|
Norway28561 Posts
You could have googled the guy. I wasn't familiar with him (Jesse Singal) either, but quickly reading about him confirms that he himself considers himself left of center (for example, he's part of a listserv where the “About” page states that it aims to provide an “off-the-record discussion forum for left-of-center journalists, authors, academics and wonks.”, and that he's controversial in the trans community.
Now, I haven't seen him called a right winger - but I see that he's considered a lying bigoted transphobe.
|
On December 18 2020 00:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2020 23:59 Danglars wrote:On December 17 2020 14:02 Salazarz wrote:On December 17 2020 13:07 Wegandi wrote:On December 16 2020 20:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 16 2020 20:38 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 14:08 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2020 11:25 BerserkSword wrote:On December 15 2020 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On December 15 2020 11:07 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
Uhhh....did swing states actually send real dueling electors? If they are actual dueling electors then the decision would go to the house, where trump would probably win.
The question is whether or not they are true dueling electors selected by state legislature (I don't know if they are) Is this a typo? The Dem led house is going to overturn the actual election results so Trump could win? It's not a typo. The electorate would not be the house members. Each state would get one vote. Republicans have 26 delegations I believe. That's why I'm almost certain Trump would be favored in such a scenario Nah, it wasn't real dueling electors. It was just theater. You can find funny video of an official patiently speaking to and stopping the pretenders from entering the actual voting chamber. Theater just like all the lawsuits and tweets and statements and letters and allegations. It'll all go on until Biden's swearing in, and then you can choose to pay attention to it or not. Then the next phase is Trump's rehabilitation as the moderate Republican than his successor candidates are oh-so-much-worse than, as we already saw talked about with Pence during the 25th Amendment theater. Thanks for the info. I will look up that video lolz Yea - I wouldve figured a true dueling elector scenario woulve garnered FAR more media press even by the mainstream media since it would surely favor trump. But when I first learned about this "second set of electors" from this TL topic, which i barely check, of all places, I was skeptical which is why I posted here in the first place. And then after reading it here i couldnt find any info on it when i investigated Also, I'm someone who thinks trump is a trojan horse by the left, so I'm not surprised by the "theater" at all lol. The left has won the long game. A NYC liberal, almost lifelong democrat who banned bump stocks, believes in protectionism and tariffs, dramatically increased the deficit, strong armed the fed into easy money policies, and bailed out banks and corporations, was able to garner the greatest conservative support of all time (In the US obviously) and still lost. Even the libertarian party has been subverted, it seems. It's all about self-preservation for me and my loved ones now - the question is not if but when (europe will be the canary in the coal mine, as most of their countries will collapse first). It will be sad seeing the leftist elite further decimate the working people but they make their own beds I guess. I think your statement that "the left has won the long game" depends on what kind of game we're looking at. I think there is certainly an argument to be made that some conservative values are going to be preserved for a reasonably long period of time, given Trump's and McConnell's influence over the Supreme Court. That being said, to quote the great philosopher Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well known liberal bias", and the slow push leftward is something that happens anyway, regardless of who is in power. Also, what do you mean by "trump is a trojan horse by the left"? Do you mean that attacking Trump is mistakenly attacking a symptom of the problem, rather than the underlying, fundamental issues that should be solved? Or do you mean that Trump is somehow a puppet of the left / useful idiot for the left? Liberalism as defined by progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings) is not "reality". Y'all are so arrogant (and often oblivious to basic facts). If leftward is deterministic I don't understand all the hubbaloo about Trump here. It's obvious you don't believe that canard by your other writings and actions. This hubris is why you guys lose all the time. The state of US politics is basically two elementary school bullies trying to pummel each other while trying to make it to the top of the playground to boss everyone around. Its pathetic. Who are these 'you guys' that are 'losing all the time'? For all the failings of the 'establishment left' in the US, just about every country in the world (US included) has been steadily drifting leftwards in the progressivism (and not its classical libertarian beginnings, to borrow your terminology) sense. And since you've used the word 'losing' here, I'm actually curious what would constitute as a victory for the conservatives. Is it things like getting Trump elected? Was the war in Iraq a victory for the other side of 'you guys'? Who and how is winning here? It sounds like we need a thread symposium on who libertarians are and what they typically believe. Just because he finds cause to disagree with most everybody in the thread does not lump him in with the conservatives by opposition. Well he is much closer to Trumper than he is to a Bernie supporter. The way he uses leftist and seems to think Biden is part communist. Also his mass distrust of government and conspiracy leanings. His opinion that rights do not come with responsibility. He also likes complex problems to be boiled down to simple answers regardless of if those answers actually make any sense. Outside of the massive spending by Trump there is not massive differences between what he wants and what Trump gives. Not everyone can be upto date on exactly the nuances of every posters political leanings and closely held beliefs. I would be interested in exactly what parts of Trumpism he is against because there appears to be a ton of overlap. @wegandi if you lived in a battle ground state would you still vote for a 3rd party?
This is like the pot calling the kettle black. I don't think Biden himself believes in anything he merely shifts to where the Democrats are and increasingly that's to positions held by Bernie and AOC. Make of that what you will.
Conspiracy leanings? Lol what. Jimmi you clearly don't know my positions or I haven't done a good enough job making them clear. You also think too highly of yourself. Complex problems are for individuals and civil society to use Hayekian emergent orders and dispersed knowledge to answer and create solutions, not bureaucratic State top-down "solutions" that are often monopolistic one size fit all garbage that takes decades to correct if at all.
Right, me and Trump we're like buddies, because I'm pro-free trade, open-borders, anti-drug war, don't like the Police or the state apparatus built since 9/11, I don't like eminent domain (Trump does), but hey because I'm for 0 taxes and 0 G-man spending I'm bosom buddies. Lol. It's funny you think someone who likes Ron Paul is a Trump supporter. The only people in the GOP who pushed back against Trump were libertarians and...well I hate to be in the same breath as them but Neo-cons like that awful Bill Crystal.
As bad as Trump is the Democrats are still way worse, which is an accomplishment in and of itself.
Y'alls problem is you mistake opposition to your positions as being Pro-Trump. Talk about lack of nuance.
|
On December 18 2020 01:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
You could have googled the guy. I wasn't familiar with him (Jesse Singal) either, but quickly reading about him confirms that he himself considers himself left of center (for example, he's part of a listserv where the “About” page states that it aims to provide an “off-the-record discussion forum for left-of-center journalists, authors, academics and wonks.”, and that he's controversial in the trans community.
Now, I haven't seen him called a right winger - but I see that he's considered a lying bigoted transphobe.
The "left" has a bit of a No True Scotsman thing. It's kind of what they've always done. Purges being a common occurrence whenever in positions of power and needing to hold 100% to strict prescriptions otherwise you're a heretic and "right wing". People threw Glenn Greenwald under the bus so fast.
|
|
|
Norway28561 Posts
On December 18 2020 01:47 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 01:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
You could have googled the guy. I wasn't familiar with him (Jesse Singal) either, but quickly reading about him confirms that he himself considers himself left of center (for example, he's part of a listserv where the “About” page states that it aims to provide an “off-the-record discussion forum for left-of-center journalists, authors, academics and wonks.”, and that he's controversial in the trans community.
Now, I haven't seen him called a right winger - but I see that he's considered a lying bigoted transphobe. The "left" has a bit of a No True Scotsman thing. It's kind of what they've always done. Purges being a common occurrence whenever in positions of power and needing to hold 100% to strict prescriptions otherwise you're a heretic and "right wing". People threw Glenn Greenwald under the bus so fast.
I mean, as an actual leftist who hangs out in leftist circles, I disagree, because I know that we can do polite disagreement on tons of different issues with no problem. I also tend to play the role of devil's advocate in these settings because it's a lot more fun when people disagree (and I think it's healthy to challenge people on their beliefs) - but I've never heard accusations that I am 'not sufficiently leftist'. But I can also see how this would certainly be your impression from viewing leftist twitter from the sideline (which also heightens the probability that the tweets you end up being exposed to are the ones considered most unreasonable in general.)
I definitely agree that the x type of bigot-insult is thrown around too frequently - as a general thing, not just from leftist to right winger (I mean, right wingers don't use bigot as insult in the same way, but they do complain about being oppressed). I have the impression it's a bigger issue in the US than it is here - but that might be because I'm also viewing the American discussion from the outside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
