Stu wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:17 pm
What's this "we" business. You always say not all leftists are the same and so I can't take the actions of one person and point fingers at them as a group. Yet here you are speaking for all leftists.... Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.
First off, you calling me a "leftist" is the same as me calling you a "fascist." Leftists are people like Lenin, Mao, and Che Guevara - communist revolutionaries, anarchists, and the like. Referring to all politically liberal people as leftists is a deliberate pejorative aimed at connecting us with totalitarian communists and Marxist guerillas. It's [nonsense]. Cut it out.
Second, when I talk about the left versus the right, or social policy, or economics, or what all ever, I'm talking about those things as they exist in the United States of America, where I live and know what's going on. Just so we're clear.
Back on topic...
I'm not trying to have it both ways. When we talk about political beliefs we're talking about a spectrum. "Left" versus "Right" is an approximation of where an individual's beliefs fall on that spectrum. Acceptance of consensual but non traditional relationships is a socially liberal position. So is support of single payer healthcare, stronger consumer protections, and regulation of Wall Street and the banks. Some people support all of those things. Others support some of them, but are skeptical of others. Most of us have nuanced positions on most things. All that said, the terms left and right have no meaning if we don't generally accept that a certain set of beliefs can be used to place a person somewhere on the political spectrum. Liberals believe certain things, and if you don't believe at least some of those things then you're not a liberal. It has to be that way, or we'll have no frame of reference to even discuss anything.
For example, I grudgingly support marriage equality but I don't love it. The issues isn't that I don't think that homosexual couples should be able to marry, it's that marriage is a religious thing that has nothing to do with the government. When we discuss marriage we're really talking about two things - a religious union and a civil union. In my opinion the religious union is none of the government's business and shouldn't be regulated in any way, but the civil union is a completely secular one, should be open to any interested party, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anybody's religion. My position is based on a blend of my utter indifference to religion and my passionate belief in equality under the law, and my rdging acceptance of marriage equality is based on my understanding that you schlubs will never let us do it properly.
What I criticize about your arguments is your tendency to take examples of extreme, obnoxious, dumbass, or criminal behavior by some politically liberal individual and present them as typical liberal activity or as evidence that "the left" has lost its mind. I have two objections to your methodology.
The first is that it's just a pathetic excuse for thinking. It's completely intellectually bankrupt. It doesn't hold up to a second of scrutiny. And no, you're not arguing that some on the left are crazy. That's a new development. For the last year you've consistently pushed the narrative that "the left" is bonkers and supported it with stories about trivial nonsense, many of which aren't even true. You never support any of it. You never reply when I fact check it and show that it's garbage. You just ignore me and do it again. And again. And again. And it's just...so...stupid.
The second is that you make no effort to apply that ****ty excuse for a metric to your own beliefs. A couple of weeks ago a self identified member of the alt-right posted a racist, anti-immigrant maniphesto warning that white people were being replaced by foreigners then drove 10 hours to El Paso and murdered a bunch of people at a WalMart. That should have shattered your entire worldview. Here you are throwing out weak ass garbage like this
and BOOM, a certified right wing populist - one of the good ones
, one of your people
- does something stupefyingly horrible and overtly racist in explicit support of the alt-right agenda. Consistent application of your methodology would completely discredit the alt-right, so you should be devastated. But no, not a peep. No soul searching. No questioning. Nothing.
So again, cut it out. It's dumb, and what's more, you don't even believe it.
Stu wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:17 pm
Besides from what I've seen on this forum you seem like a conservative liberal compared to others out there, so you hardly represent the whole.
I'm just more pragmatic than idealistic.
If you're accustomed to privilege equality may feel like oppression.
Before you ask why ask if.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.