If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Much like other authoritarian groups; individualism is shunned, thoughts are policed, and the rule of law is only a concern if it can be used to further their agenda. Somehow these kooks have used their platform to; defame a renowned civil rights advocate (calling Bernie Sanders a racist), turn egalitarianism into a slur, and suppress free speech at every turn, all the while touting victimhood to extract ever more money and power to be used towards their causes.
When I was college I read Rules for Radicals, and although interesting, I wasn't enamoured with Alinsky's tactics. They're divisive, destructive, and stank of social manipulation. However, I read the book again recently, because so much of what I've seen from current Progressives resonated with what I remembered from it, and sure enough, they're using it as a playbook, following it word-for-word. Does that bother you? It does me, in fact it scares the shit out of me, because the ultimate eventuality proposed by Alinsky is the formation of a Marxist state. Wherein he posits that the only way to achieve the "greater good" is to suppress individual freedoms that do not agree with the culture the "groupmind" works to establish.
To sum up, if Progressives succeed in their goals we will only have tyranny, and if you believe that's what America is like now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
As a supplement, if you have some time, watch this analysis of Rules for Radicals (by an individual who is part of the British Labour Party, no less), or better yet, read the book for yourself. It's positively chilling.
and if you have even more time, check out his lecture on Liberalism vs Progressivism.
(
Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Nov 20, 2015 at 03:24 PM.
Reason: a more accurate name)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This may seem pedantic, but I really don't think it is.
While the tactics you're talking about are being used by progressives, the tactics are independent of policy positions.
There are plenty of progressives who don't use these tactics. They shouldn't get tarred in this.
I have similar opinions about the "social justice" label.
I see. Are you for the suppression of an individual's speech for the perceived benefit of the social collective? Because that is the Progressive platform now. Don't like what someone is saying? Form a mob and shout them down. That it's somehow a form of justice to circumvent the rule of law when it suits your needs? Progressivism and Social Justice are merely modern words for fascism, and part and parcel are destroying classical liberalism, which is the foundation of Western culturalism and the freedoms of the individual.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If I complain about heteronormalcy, that's going to be termed progressivism, even if I'm really, really polite about it.
Which I am. Love thy Chongo.
My issue with the label aside, it's pretty frigging out of control, but there seems to be backlash. Very few people seemed to praise shouting Bernie off the stage, for example.
It still makes me chuckle that Americans use 'liberal' as a negative and now we are adding 'progressive'?
By the time I'm dead I'll be getting accused of being a "God-damned awesome, liberal, progressive, compassionate, generous, humanitarian, intellectualist piece of shit" by the people I argue with on the internet.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I see. Are you for the suppression of an individual's speech for the perceived benefit of the social collective? Because that is the Progressive platform now. Don't like what someone is saying? Form a mob and shout them down.
It sounds bad when you put it this way but 80 or so years ago an Austrian fella and some Germans started saying things that weren't very nice and eventually the rest of the world decided they didn't like it and formed a mob to shut them down.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That it's somehow a form of justice to circumvent the rule of law when it suits your needs?
You believe that law and justice are the same thing? That doesn't seem like you.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Progressivism and Social Justice are merely modern words for fascism, and part and parcel are destroying classical liberalism, which is the foundation of Western culturalism and the freedoms of the individual.
I have a feeling that classical liberalism happened at a time when those individual freedoms were championed because they were just and right, not just because they were individual and different from the norm. Thats fashion you're thinking of.
So nowadays when people want to champion their rights to be dicks to other people, yes you form a mob to demonstrate that everyone else strongly disagrees with you being a dick so maybe you might rethink being a dick. This is especially true when people are dicks for ass-backwards reasons, because sooner or later they or their descendants will learn the error of their ways so people are just trying to speed the process along so that fewer people are victims of them being dicks.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Even if it's junk science, and that's being charitable.
If I complain about heteronormalcy, that's going to be termed progressivism, even if I'm really, really polite about it.
Today's progressivism is about abusing others to gain acceptance for what you want, that's the MO behind Rules for Radicals,
My issue with the label aside, it's pretty frigging out of control, but there seems to be backlash. Very few people seemed to praise shouting Bernie off the stage, for example.
It's not just labels. I don't take issue with what Progressives want, as their right they can want whatever they like, it's all about how they're trying to get it and the fact it appears there are no limits on what they'll attempt.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It still makes me chuckle that Americans use 'liberal' as a negative and now we are adding 'progressive'?
I've used liberal as a negative term? In fact, I'm pretty sure I've called myself a liberal. Progressivism was fine, until it was co-opted by the authoritarian/Marxist Left, and that's not what I call them, that's what they call themselves.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It sounds bad when you put it this way but 80 or so years ago an Austrian fella and some Germans started saying things that weren't very nice and eventually the rest of the world decided they didn't like it and formed a mob to shut them down.
You think it was about what the Nazis were saying? That's dumb, man.
You believe that law and justice are the same thing? That doesn't seem like you.
I do, it sure beats lawlessness.
I have a feeling that classical liberalism happened at a time when those individual freedoms were championed because they were just and right, not just because they were individual and different from the norm. Thats fashion you're thinking of.
Classical liberalism began with Plato, I have no idea what you're talking about.
So nowadays when people want to champion their rights to be dicks to other people, yes you form a mob to demonstrate that everyone else strongly disagrees with you being a dick so maybe you might rethink being a dick. This is especially true when people are dicks for ass-backwards reasons, because sooner or later they or their descendants will learn the error of their ways so people are just trying to speed the process along so that fewer people are victims of them being dicks.
Whis is wrong and just turns you into a worse **** than they ever were.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” - John Stuart Mill
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So nowadays when people want to champion their rights to be dicks to other people, yes you form a mob to demonstrate that everyone else strongly disagrees with you being a dick so maybe you might rethink being a dick. This is especially true when people are dicks for ass-backwards reasons, because sooner or later they or their descendants will learn the error of their ways so people are just trying to speed the process along so that fewer people are victims of them being dicks.
You've never been in a situation where you thought the other person was a dick, but realize at a later point you were the dick?
This on its own should be all it takes to give one pause before assembling a screaming mob.
It's not just labels. I don't take issue with what Progressives want, as their right they can want whatever they like, it's all about how they're trying to get it and the fact it appears there are no limits on what they'll attempt.
What progressives want, gets labeled as progressive, too. That's my point about the labels.
"I have no problem with what progressives want", is not compatible with "progressivism is a cancer in our society".
You may want to read Mark Levins "Liberty and Tyranny" which examines a lot of what the Marxist/Progressives have been up to.
I guess if the left hadn't been so obviously hypocrites, and believe such utter BS that their 'solutions' to problems in society have made things lots worse, the whole thing might have worked out.
You may want to read Mark Levins "Liberty and Tyranny" which examines a lot of what the Marxist/Progressives have been up to.
I guess if the left hadn't been so obviously hypocrites, and believe such utter BS that their 'solutions' to problems in society have made things lots worse, the whole thing might have worked out.
It's the hypocrisy I find most notable.
Someone on the "home team" will get lauded for doing the same thing which gets the enemy torches and pitchforks.
The use of rape in fiction is where I'm noticing it the most. It's awesome when our team uses it, but the other team is supporting rape culture... boycott!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Someone on the "home team" will get lauded for doing the same thing which gets the enemy torches and pitchforks.
The use of rape in fiction is where I'm noticing it the most. It's awesome when our team uses it, but the other team is supporting rape culture... boycott!
There is no "rape culture", that's a fiction. There are rape fetishists, both male and female, but they are few and far between.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What progressives want, gets labeled as progressive, too. That's my point about the labels.
"I have no problem with what progressives want", is not compatible with "progressivism is a cancer in our society".
Not really. Few care about what others want, you can do what you like and no one will care as long as you aren't harming others. That's the heart of classical Liberalism, the foundation of free expression within a democratic state. However, current day Progressivism is hand-and-glove with thought control and groupthink, espousing fascist tactics. It's as if these people have never even heard of 1984.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There is no "rape culture", that's a fiction. There are rape fetishists, both male and female, but they are few and far between.
If rape fetishists were so few and far between, I don't think 50SoG would have been the quite the runaway hit.
It is fetishists who get targeted though... as long as they're on the enemy team.
As for whether "rape culture" is a myth, it's too right in my face for me to ignore. I've had to tell too many people who should know better it is not okay to put the moves on someone who is so drunk they can barely walk.
Not really. Few care about what others want, you can do what you like and no one will care as long as you aren't harming others. That's the heart of classical Liberalism, the foundation of free expression within a democratic state. However, current day Progressivism is hand-and-glove with thought control and groupthink, espousing fascist tactics. It's as if these people have never even heard of 1984.
I honestly don't want to derail the thread with this, especially since I have commentary on your main point, so in a pointedly not-progressivist way, I'm totally fine with us disagreeing on this.
I still have this sneaking suspicion though, that when I talk about rape culture and heteronormalcy, people are going to label those positions "progressivism", even though I stay well away from the tactics you describe.
If it were called "extreme progressives are a cancer" I think few would disagree. We could easily create a thread about how extreme conservatives are a cancer. Extreme anythings are a cancer.
What is not a cancer is people that look for effective leadership, look for people that support positions they feel are the most important, look for somebody that seems intelligent and of a strong will that is not your prototypical politician that is overly political and quite likely bought and paid for.
Tightpants said he is willing to vote for Sanders, which is the kind of thing we need. He may not line up with him on every issue, but these factors I've listed here are more important. It is more important to get stuff done than to be able to check an ideological box while being unable to lead. These qualities are extremely rare not just in the US but all over the world. There are very few effective leaders.
If Bush didn't destroy the economy and Iraq I would say he was an effective leader because, to his credit, he did get done many of the things he said he would. Obama's accomplishments have been a disappointment despite the fact that he certainly seemed like a promising leader going into his first term.
My point is that effective leadership is rare, and when it exists it could also happen to be progressive or conservative. If a conservative had these qualities I might vote for one, but to my eye they are all shit. I'm undecided about Sanders, but he's the only one I like right now.
If rape fetishists were so few and far between, I don't think 50SoG would have been the quite the runaway hit.
It is fetishists who get targeted though... as long as they're on the enemy team.
As for whether "rape culture" is a myth, it's too right in my face for me to ignore. I've had to tell too many people who should know better it is not okay to put the moves on someone who is so drunk they can barely walk.
Women like romance movies, even if they're weird or twisted. Also if you tell someone not to see something, or that it's wrong, then they just want to check it out all the more (even if it doesn't become a common theme in their lives). The idea that rape is ingrained in our culture is a power play, they (Progressives) use it as a nuclear option. Why? Because the mere mention of it is so repulsive to the vast majority that you automatically receive overwhelming support and sympathy. That doesn't sound like something our culture endorses, does it?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Extremist Progressives are now the mainstream within that movement, they control the narrative and the dialogue. The Left has turned authoritarian on you, much like the Fundamentalists did with the Right.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Extremist Progressives are now the mainstream within that movement, they control the narrative and the dialogue. The Left has turned authoritarian on you, much like the Fundamentalists did with the Right.
What is "that movement"? Extreme progressives are the mainstream of the extreme progressive movement.
You should get out more, or watch the news feeds more carefully. Extremist Progressives are now the mainstream within Progressivism, they're the norm, and fast becoming the mainstream within the Left as a whole. I'm soon going to start a thread highlighting initiatives and actions within the new Progressive "collective", maybe that will help people see what's going on.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You should get out more, or watch the news feeds more carefully. Extremist Progressives are now the mainstream within Progressivism, they're the norm, and fast becoming the mainstream within the Left as a whole. I'm soon going to start a thread highlighting initiatives and actions within the new Progressive "collective", maybe that will help people see what's going on.
I think you are conflating the extreme progressive movement with what you think is the progressive movement. I don't remember there ever being a moderate progressive movement, I don't think moderates generally have movements.
Again, everything you've said here could be said about an extreme conservative movement, only with different themes, but who cares? There are always extreme movements, they don't control the electorate.
If you want to make the case that the country is generally moving further left, you could, although then you'd have to explain the 2014 elections. I'd also say you are barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't with people being too far left or too right, it's with there being a complete void of effective leadership at all levels, regardless of party.
You think it was about what the Nazis were saying? That's dumb, man.
You have to take a perfectly good analogy 100% literally? Thats pretty dumb too.
It starts with what people say. When they say undesirable things, it likely leads to undesirable actions. A screaming mob is only exercising the same freedom of speech as the people they disagree with. Hopefully a show of numbers is enough to make their opposites question their position. When the undesirables start doing undesirable things, then the mob does more than just scream about it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I do, it sure beats lawlessness.
So when that judge let off the kid who killed his friends in a drunken car crash because he was "too rich to know better", thats justice for you because the law let it happen?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Classical liberalism began with Plato, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not sure Plato had people like the WBC in mind.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Whis is wrong and just turns you into a worse **** than they ever were.
For someone who claims to be so smart its disappointing that I have to spell things out like a legal contract so you can't twist or misunderstand my words.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” - John Stuart Mill
Numbers have no bearing on who is justified and who is not. Once upon a time black people were enslaved by whites and the majority was fine with it. Eventually the majority shifted which affected the change but it started with a few and those few were always justified. If the majority were to swing back the other way, that wouldn't make slavery justified.
You respect peoples right to think and say what they want, but you have every right to question and argue with them because after all, thats the reason they have the right to be different to you, to keep your opinions on their toes to make sure they get put right and stay right.
Essentially you are getting annoyed because people are being passionate as they go about trying to change the minds of people they see as wrong. If they start being violent or threatening, you might have a point.
Nothing is beyond question, but some answers will never change.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Secularist threats against religious liberty are spreading like a stain. Thus, I was attracted immediately to Bruce Abramson's Mosaic column, How Jews Can Help Christians Live as a Creative Minority.
Abramson warns Christians that the space to practice their faith in the way they live is shrinking. Tell me something I don’t know, I thought. But my attention focused when Abramson (citing political scientist Peter Berkowitz) cast the trending secularist oppression we are witnessing as a clash between classical “liberalism” and contemporary “progressivism.”
Liberalism stands for “freedom and the rule of law,” he writes, “a system of ‘negative rights’ that no government may legitimately infringe (as in the U.S. Bill of Rights).” In contrast, progressives seek to ensure “equality and justice,” by guaranteeing these outcomes through the enactment of a series of “‘positive’ rights like housing, food, and health care” that someone must provide—be it government or the private sector.
Abramson’s description of the conflict between liberalism and progressivism explains the drive to promote “patients' rights” over the consciences of doctors and other medical professionals in the abortion, assisted suicide, prescription, and other contexts. In this regard, mere legalization of these procedures does not guarantee the free and open access to them deemed by progressives as a positive right. Achieving that goal will require coercion; that is, forcing doctors (and other medical professionals, such as pharmacists) to participate—even when it violates their religious beliefs and deeply held moral convictions.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Sep 5, 2015 at 09:48 PM.
)
As long as a patient has access to at least one (preferably two I guess) doctors who will fulfil their rights then there is no need to force unwilling doctors to do anything.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I think you are conflating the extreme progressive movement with what you think is the progressive movement. I don't remember there ever being a moderate progressive movement, I don't think moderates generally have movements.
Again, everything you've said here could be said about an extreme conservative movement, only with different themes, but who cares? There are always extreme movements, they don't control the electorate.
If you want to make the case that the country is generally moving further left, you could, although then you'd have to explain the 2014 elections. I'd also say you are barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't with people being too far left or too right, it's with there being a complete void of effective leadership at all levels, regardless of party.
No, I don't believe I'm conflating anything, if anything I'm playing it down. It's worse than I've indicated in certain areas, such as higher education.
It could be said about that with the conservatives, and they've been bashed for it for years, if not decades, due to the idiocy with the fundamentalists.
That's the thing, the average American isn't moving Left, they're consolidating in the Center, which is generally a good thing. This is about the tyranny of the vocal minority from the Left, the authoritarians who have taking it over bit by bit and are attempting to change at its core what Liberalism is by tearing down individuality.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You have to take a perfectly good analogy 100% literally? Thats pretty dumb too.
It starts with what people say. When they say undesirable things, it likely leads to undesirable actions. A screaming mob is only exercising the same freedom of speech as the people they disagree with. Hopefully a show of numbers is enough to make their opposites question their position. When the undesirables start doing undesirable things, then the mob does more than just scream about it.
People can say undesirable things, from your perspective, but you know what, it's not your place to try to shut them up. When the mob moves to shut them up, they're wrong and you've set yourself up to be a bigger monster than they ever were. You've become the bully, the aggressor, and it's time to disperse the mob. In essence, who you feel is "undesirable" means nothing, they have as much right to express themselves as you.
So when that judge let off the kid who killed his friends in a drunken car crash because he was "too rich to know better", thats justice for you because the law let it happen?
That's an excuse for mob violence or "Social Justice"? No. He and his family are being sued into oblivion, they're losing everything they had. You're quite naive if you think people just "get away" with things like that
I'm not sure Plato had people like the WBC in mind.
They have the right to speak, even if I don't like what they say. You think things were any easier back in ancient Rome, where unpopular opinions would get you crucified? Are you being serious?
For someone who claims to be so smart its disappointing that I have to spell things out like a legal contract so you can't twist or misunderstand my words.
What's to misunderstand, you said that you're for forming a mob and shouting down views that you don't like. That makes you an enemy of free speech, a tyrant, and just as bad as the people who abuse gays and transexuals because they're different. You're essentially espousing "might makes right", because your mob is currently mightier, louder. When that changes, and it always does, who will speak up for you?
Numbers have no bearing on who is justified and who is not. Once upon a time black people were enslaved by whites and the majority was fine with it. Eventually the majority shifted which affected the change but it started with a few and those few were always justified. If the majority were to swing back the other way, that wouldn't make slavery justified.
You respect peoples right to think and say what they want, but you have every right to question and argue with them because after all, thats the reason they have the right to be different to you, to keep your opinions on their toes to make sure they get put right and stay right.
Essentially you are getting annoyed because people are being passionate as they go about trying to change the minds of people they see as wrong. If they start being violent or threatening, you might have a point.
Nothing is beyond question, but some answers will never change.
I'm upset because the people who were once the ones on the receiving end of unfair treatment learned nothing, and are now the evil that they sought to overcome. They're the bullies, the mob, the purveyors of hate speech, the racists, the sexist jerks, working to ruin people's lives for daring to have a differing opinion. IOW, the enemies of a free state.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
People can say undesirable things, from your perspective, but you know what, it's not your place to try to shut them up.
Who's place is it? Insert quote about good people doing nothing and evil triumphing.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
When the mob moves to shut them up, they're wrong and you've set yourself up to be a bigger monster than they ever were. You've become the bully, the aggressor, and it's time to disperse the mob. In essence, who you feel is "undesirable" means nothing, they have as much right to express themselves as you.
You don't seem to understand how change is effected in society. The mob = the majority.
Step 1: A small minority speaks against the (unjust) status quo;
Step 2: Despite resistance from the majority, others will join the cause because they will either find the courage to speak out or change their minds after hearing others and rethinking;
Step 3: Eventually those who support the cause will become the majority;
Step 4: Finally the law and or society is changed on the subject;
It happens this way for things which are deeply wrong with society. It doesn't work so well when the minority are preaching something wrong, stupid or evil because during step 2 the balance never shifts. You advocate giving anyone with a minority opinion a platform to speak without question or criticism. Banning criticism is the monster move here, not rallying your fellow citizens to counter dangerous ideas.
I seem to recall that someone started a thread about Farrakhan being a terrorist for expressing his individualism. Didn't you want him arrested and charged? Isn' t that calling on the mobs enforcers to shut him down completely? The progressive way you seem to dislike would be to protest his talks or speak to his supporters to give them other viewpoints.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That's an excuse for mob violence or "Social Justice"? No. He and his family are being sued into oblivion, they're losing everything they had. You're quite naive if you think people just "get away" with things like that
Irrelevant. You equated law to justice, this is one example of that equation failing.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They have the right to speak, even if I don't like what they say. You think things were any easier back in ancient Rome, where unpopular opinions would get you crucified? Are you being serious?
And thats why liberalism happened. Because good people saw that power was being abused to maintain itself. You want to ban everyone else from picketing the WBC when clearly if 100,000 people with placards camped outside their compound it would be a great thing, but you want Farrakhan locked up which is as close as you might hopefully get to having him crucified for hate speech. Apparently its ok for you to decide when individualism is bad and wrong but not me?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
What's to misunderstand, you said that you're for forming a mob and shouting down views that you don't like. That makes you an enemy of free speech, a tyrant, and just as bad as the people who abuse gays and transexuals because they're different. You're essentially espousing "might makes right", because your mob is currently mightier, louder. When that changes, and it always does, who will speak up for you?
I'm saying fight free speech with free speech. There is no argument against that. And which mob is louder only usually only changes when the mob is wrong. You seem to have an idea that all ideas can, will and even should bounce back and forth between being good and bad, right and wrong over time. This happens with views on sexual liberation and hedonism and probably other things, but freedoms, rights and ethics are a predominantly one-way trip thus far.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I'm upset because the people who were once the ones on the receiving end of unfair treatment learned nothing, and are now the evil that they sought to overcome. They're the bullies, the mob, the purveyors of hate speech, the racists, the sexist jerks, working to ruin people's lives for daring to have a differing opinion. IOW, the enemies of a free state.
This much is true though I'm not sure it ties in with your distaste for unbalanced discussion. Most liberal progressives would summon their mobs against hate speech, racists, sexists and MRAs. I would indeed call that a good thing. People have a right to believe and say what they want, I have a right to believe and say they are idiots but if you restrict debate to one on one, the idiots get an idea that their viewpoint is equally credible and this is a dangerous thing indeed, because then you get ridiculous situations like the BBC being fair and balanced by inviting an Astrologer along every time they interview an Astronomer. Happily the mob told them this was dumb and they stopped doing it.
People have an equal right to have ideas, ideas have no right to be heard or respected.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Who's place is it? Insert quote about good people doing nothing and evil triumphing.
Doing nothing? Are you saying it's okay to abuse or terrorize people you disagree with, people you see as evil?
You don't seem to understand how change is effected in society. The mob = the majority.
You don't understand that cruelty and abuse aren't the ways to achieve that.
It happens this way for things which are deeply wrong with society. It doesn't work so well when the minority are preaching something wrong, stupid or evil because during step 2 the balance never shifts. You advocate giving anyone with a minority opinion a platform to speak without question or criticism. Banning criticism is the monster move here, not rallying your fellow citizens to counter dangerous ideas.
What the ****? You can say whatever you want, but when it moves to perpetrating, inciting, and advocating violence against others, you've stepped over the line. When you refuse public services, or attendance to public institutions, to others because they're different, you're wrong. When you refuse a platform to speak because you disagree with someone, you're wrong.
I seem to recall that someone started a thread about Farrakhan being a terrorist for expressing his individualism. Didn't you want him arrested and charged? Isn' t that calling on the mobs enforcers to shut him down completely? The progressive way you seem to dislike would be to protest his talks or speak to his supporters to give them other viewpoints.
Do you now? Think for a second, why would I do that if I champion free speech? Must be some reason for it? Could it be because he was openly inciting a crowd to commit murder? That he was calling for public servants to be openly hunted down and killed in the streets? That he himself is advocating the destruction of the rights of others in the most destructive and hateful way imaginable? Gosh, I can't imagine why.
Irrelevant. You equated law to justice, this is one example of that equation failing.
The law IS justice, and when it doesn't work you petition and vote for change, you rally to have your voice heard and make change possible, you don't call for the murder, marginalization, or limitation of others. Silencing others just to make yourself louder makes you a fascist.
And thats why liberalism happened. Because good people saw that power was being abused to maintain itself. You want to ban everyone else from picketing the WBC when clearly if 100,000 people with placards camped outside their compound it would be a great thing, but you want Farrakhan locked up which is as close as you might hopefully get to having him crucified for hate speech. Apparently its ok for you to decide when individualism is bad and wrong but not me?
Farrakhan broke the law when he incited murder, the fact he wasn't charged only shows how powerful Progressives have become. You don't stop abuse with more abuse, evil can't beget good.
I'm saying fight free speech with free speech.
No, you weren't. You're advocating the silencing of what you believe are "harmful opinions", when the only time they should be made silent is when they call for harm and murder against others. What you believe may be a "harmful opinion", could be one, it may be bad for society, but as an example, nearly a billion Muslims believe that all gays should be immediately rounded up and executed, and they believe with all their hearts that opinions differing from theirs are "harmful". IOW, it's entirely relative.
This much is true though I'm not sure it ties in with your distaste for unbalanced discussion. Most liberal progressives would summon their mobs against hate speech, racists, sexists and MRAs. I would indeed call that a good thing. People have a right to believe and say what they want, I have a right to believe and say they are idiots but if you restrict debate to one on one, the idiots get an idea that their viewpoint is equally credible and this is a dangerous thing indeed, because then you get ridiculous situations like the BBC being fair and balanced by inviting an Astrologer along every time they interview an Astronomer. Happily the mob told them this was dumb and they stopped doing it.
People have an equal right to have ideas, ideas have no right to be heard or respected.
That's just... f*cked up. Well, I suppose I rest my case. Well... thanks for the talk, I guess.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Indeed, that's so messed up that I actually cringed when I read it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There's a big excluded middle between doing nothing and taking action to silence your opposition.
Precisely.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The idea that rape is ingrained in our culture is a power play, they (Progressives) use it as a nuclear option. Why? Because the mere mention of it is so repulsive to the vast majority that you automatically receive overwhelming support and sympathy. That doesn't sound like something our culture endorses, does it?
There's a high jackass quotient with most progressive theory.
Most of this stuff is easy to weaponize. Give people who consider themselves oppressed a weapon, and the results are predictable.
I fully admit, the theory is easier to sympathize with when it isn't being used to club you over the head.
Maybe this is an easy one for me, because as a Chicagoan, I had to grow up with it.
We have a predominately Jewish suburb: Skokie.
Every year, the ****ing Illinois Nazis hold their march for Jew hatred there.
You. Let. Them. March.
In a free society, this is not negotiable. How much I hate them back is irrelevant.
Excepting the fact that marching isn't really a crucial part of free speech especially in a neighbourhood that belongs to the people you hate the most, I'm saying why can't you line the streets with people condemning the marchers?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Doing nothing? Are you saying it's okay to abuse or terrorize people you disagree with, people you see as evil?
You don't understand that cruelty and abuse aren't the ways to achieve that.
What the ****? You can say whatever you want, but when it moves to perpetrating, inciting, and advocating violence against others, you've stepped over the line. When you refuse public services, or attendance to public institutions, to others because they're different, you're wrong. When you refuse a platform to speak because you disagree with someone, you're wrong.
Do you now? Think for a second, why would I do that if I champion free speech? Must be some reason for it? Could it be because he was openly inciting a crowd to commit murder? That he was calling for public servants to be openly hunted down and killed in the streets? That he himself is advocating the destruction of the rights of others in the most destructive and hateful way imaginable? Gosh, I can't imagine why.
I feel like there is a disconnect between what I'm saying is ok and what you think is actually happening. I'm saying that when an ugly idea rears its head, if you want to campaign against it, thats your right and if you want to try and enlist support from others thats ok too. I'm not advocating threatening anyone, hurting anyone or inciting 3rd parties to hurt anyone for you. Is that wha you think progressives are doing because it sounds like you are just complaining that their ideas have more vocal support.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
The law IS justice, and when it doesn't work you petition and vote for change, you rally to have your voice heard and make change possible, you don't call for the murder, marginalization, or limitation of others. Silencing others just to make yourself louder makes you a fascist.
So the law is the be all and end all but your boy Farrakhan chose his words carefully so as not to break the law, he is a minority speaking his unpopular ideas which you don't like so he should be locked up but the progressives are ganging up on someone and protecting this individual's free speech?
Meanwhile an elected clerk who refuses to either do her job or resign to the point where she has breached multiple court orders is cool with you, because you like the idea that she shouldn't have to endorse things she doesn't agree with and the media is an example of the progressives ganging up on an individual who has the right to resign?
You're a bit all over the place on this issue aren't you?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, you weren't. You're advocating the silencing of what you believe are "harmful opinions", when the only time they should be made silent is when they call for harm and murder against others. What you believe may be a "harmful opinion", could be one, it may be bad for society, but as an example, nearly a billion Muslims believe that all gays should be immediately rounded up and executed, and they believe with all their hearts that opinions differing from theirs are "harmful". IOW, it's entirely relative.
And eventually most of those Muslims will learn the error of their ways as their society follows ours or progresses if you will.
I never said anyone should be silenced. Out-shouting them is not the same thing.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That's just... f*cked up. Well, I suppose I rest my case. Well... thanks for the talk, I guess.
Its really not. And I think you'll find Paco was emphasising it because its right, not because its f*cked up.
Ideas do not have rights. You have the right to have an idea, any idea. You don't have a right to act on it if its murderous or otherwise forbidden by law. You can talk about that idea as much as you like but you have no right to make anyone else listen. Its up to you to find a platform or to earn one. Then its up to the idea to sustain itself. You have have the right to have ideas, not to have them heard or respected. If you think thats f*cked up then I should really be the one doing the mic drop here.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I feel like there is a disconnect between what I'm saying is ok and what you think is actually happening. I'm saying that when an ugly idea rears its head, if you want to campaign against it, thats your right and if you want to try and enlist support from others thats ok too. I'm not advocating threatening anyone, hurting anyone or inciting 3rd parties to hurt anyone for you. Is that wha you think progressives are doing because it sounds like you are just complaining that their ideas have more vocal support.
I really think what's being discussed is better described by "outrage culture" or something rather than progressivism, it just happens progressives have an easy time finding things to get outraged about.
Likewise, I doubt there's much resistance to the idea of "in-kind" rebuttal. What I'm bothered by is the disparity in response. Rebutting arguments is great, it's what this is all about. The problem arises when the rebuttal is turned on "maximum" regardless of what's being rebutted.
Picket the WBC? Absolutely. That's exactly what they're doing. It's an "in kind" rebuttal. Where the problem arises is with moving them to a "free speech zone", and banning the protest before and after the funeral.
Few examples have reached the legislation point like this has, but I'm still disturbed by the lesser examples.
Gamergate is probably the most well known example. In numerous places, pro-Gamergate discussion was shut down for being misogynist. Make no mistake, Gamergate was filled with misogyny, the problem was the shutting down occurred independent of the statements actually being misogynist.
Having the temerity to discuss the issue meant you had to wear the label.
I wish I could come up with a concise and intuitive explanation for the phenomenon under discussion. I'm still struggling with it, so I guess we'll all have to suffer through me haphazardly connecting dots.
There's a hefty language component to this thing... whatever we want to call it. The three important words are "racist", "sexist", and "homophobic".
Ostensibly, you can lob one of these accusations at someone and intend for there to be fruitful conversation on the other side, but the reality is, you've just taken the last (theoretically) civil word, and used to to label someone as a bad person. You've (not in any legal sense, of course) silenced the debate with an ad hominem challenge.
Now, I'll be the first to say, just because it's ad hominem, doesn't mean it's untrue. There are in fact times when the only recourse is to take out the loaded gun and pull the trigger.
None of this is new. What is new, and I think this is in large part due to social media, is how casually the trigger is getting pulled. Social media has caused those trigger pulls to shoot farther than ever, and can quickly get others firing alongside.
Have a difference of opinion of the Confederate flag? RACIST!
Beat up a hooker in GTA? SEXIST!
Have a difference of opinion on gay marriage? HOMOPHOBE!
It would be one thing if these accusations were limited to the percentage of people genuinely deserving of the label, but that's where everything is going off the rails. They're being used regardless.
I really think what's being discussed is better described by "outrage culture" or something rather than progressivism, it just happens progressives have an easy time finding things to get outraged about.
Outrage culture is exactly what the RW media has been fostering and exploiting for years now. MaybeVT doesn't like that the LW media is trying to play the same game. I guess thats something I can understand in principle, though some things are more deserving of outrage than others
Originally Posted by subego
Picket the WBC? Absolutely. That's exactly what they're doing. It's an "in kind" rebuttal. Where the problem arises is with moving them to a "free speech zone", and banning the protest before and after the funeral.
I can see why this feels a little off to free speech advocates but I think having the right to say what you want and having the right to say it where you want are two different things. In the case of the WBC the government can claim they are inciting trouble when they picket a funeral which becomes a safety issue (I wonder do they get billed for extra policing when they picket? Football clubs in the UK have to pay for more cops on match days).
Alternatively, the argument about having the right to free speech anywhere on public land could be countered for the WBC by the government claiming that allowing them to do so would be a violation of separation of church and state. Finally it could e looked at as infringing on funeral goers rights to freedom of religion, though this is a stretch. I why wonder the WBC don't picket in public buildings where gay marriage licenses are handed out to even registry offices where ceremonies are performed.
Originally Posted by subego
Gamergate is probably the most well known example. In numerous places, pro-Gamergate discussion was shut down for being misogynist. Make no mistake, Gamergate was filled with misogyny, the problem was the shutting down occurred independent of the statements actually being misogynist.
Having the temerity to discuss the issue meant you had to wear the label.
Wasn't this a case of it being shut down by the private owners of whatever forum the discussions occurred on? You can understand how companies might be a little OTT when it comes to protecting their reputation. They are simply trying to avoid being tarred with the same outrage.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I wish I could come up with a concise and intuitive explanation for the phenomenon under discussion. I'm still struggling with it, so I guess we'll all have to suffer through me haphazardly connecting dots.
I think part of the problem is that certain former majority opinions have become opinions on the fringe. The examples you gave, I think, fit this description perfectly. When I went to a US high school some 18 years ago, it was clearly mainstream there to claim homosexuality was improper, in contradiction to the values of the bible (even people who otherwise wouldn't quote the bible use it as a justification), and my host grandfather wouldn't even want to be in the same room as a gay man. (The same thing happens in Germany on a much, much smaller scale.) Ditto for racism in the South (my sister's first host family from Georgia told her point blank to “not fraternize with blacks” in 1999). Nowadays the majority opinion has shifted and people who are accustomed to representing the majority opinion no longer do. Also a growing percentage of the population in the US are atheists.
Given that progress usually does not go the conservative's way by the very nature, I think it's clear perception-wise this has a progressive tinge to some, even though a lot of it is actually independent of political affiliation. Among young voters, for instance, there is overwhelming support for gay marriage for both, Republicans and Democrats. And that's despite the fact that this is sold as a differentiating factor between the two parties. If you look at polls on the legalization of weed, they tell a very similar story.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Maybe this is an easy one for me, because as a Chicagoan, I had to grow up with it.
We have a predominately Jewish suburb: Skokie.
Every year, the ****ing Illinois Nazis hold their march for Jew hatred there.
You. Let. Them. March.
In a free society, this is not negotiable. How much I hate them back is irrelevant.
And honestly, I'd much rather they have to walk through a neighborhood where they'll have a hard time to garner support for their ideology. It's much better if people have to take responsibility for their opinions out in public rather than some backyard amongst other people of the same persuasion. Let the nazis protest, and let them feel every time they protest that they are considered a looney fringe of society. Ditto for protestors from the Westboro Baptist Church. (Feel free to add more examples.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I think part of the problem is that certain former majority opinions have become opinions on the fringe. The examples you gave, I think, fit this description perfectly. When I went to a US high school some 18 years ago, it was clearly mainstream there to claim homosexuality was improper, in contradiction to the values of the bible (even people who otherwise wouldn't quote the bible use it as a justification), and my host grandfather wouldn't even want to be in the same room as a gay man. (The same thing happens in Germany on a much, much smaller scale.) Ditto for racism in the South (my sister's first host family from Georgia told her point blank to “not fraternize with blacks” in 1999). Nowadays the majority opinion has shifted and people who are accustomed to representing the majority opinion no longer do. Also a growing percentage of the population in the US are atheists.
These actually sound like different things to me.
Not being willing to be in the same room as a homosexual? You can't really argue that's not homophobic. An admonition not to associate with black people? You can't argue that's not racist.
Believing the Confederate flag represents more than slavery, or that someone isn't wiling to abandon their religion over marriage rights... those people don't deserve the label.
When we were talking about Anita Sarkeesian, you did a good job of flipping me, and getting me to focus on the validity of her statements.
You needed to do this because I had to get around the part where I'm being labeled as sexist for enjoying the nastier parts of GTA.
I had to get around that because the accusation is false.
And honestly, I'd much rather they have to walk through a neighborhood where they'll have a hard time to garner support for their ideology. It's much better if people have to take responsibility for their opinions out in public rather than some backyard amongst other people of the same persuasion. Let the nazis protest, and let them feel every time they protest that they are considered a looney fringe of society. Ditto for protestors from the Westboro Baptist Church. (Feel free to add more examples.)
In theory then, you should be against banning the WBC from protesting funerals.
At the moment, and I have no idea why this hasn't hit the Supreme Court yet, they are banned from protesting before and after the funeral.
That's funny.
Top