The right isn't getting people fired or stepping on free speech, you say?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ran across these news stories today...

First... http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/peter-sprigg-urges-senate-to-grill-lesbian-air-force-nominee-about-her-homosexual-conduct/

The Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg published a post on the FRC's blog today urging the Senate to grill Kristin Goodwin about any "homosexual conduct" she may have engaged in prior to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 2011.

As we noted last week, anti-LGBTQ activists are up in arms over Goodwin's nomination to serve as a commandant of cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy because she is a lesbian. In his post, Sprigg urged Senate Republicans to make Goodwin's sexual history a focus of questions during her confirmation hearing.

Sprigg states that, contrary to popular belief, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell regulations enacted by the Department of Defense under President Bill Clinton in 1994 differed from the law that was enacted by Congress at the time regarding the issue of homosexuality in the military.

DOD regulations declared that "sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct," and Sprigg notes that, under the law, engaging in "homosexual conduct" was grounds for dismissal:

"The law also declared flatly that "A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces" [emphasis added] if it was found: (1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts . . .

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect . . .

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

...

The actual law enacted by Congress, however, made clear that all three elements of a "homosexual orientation"-attractions, conduct, and self-identification-remained problematic for the military. The statement, "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity [emphasis added] or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk," addresses sexual attractions. And both the conduct ("the member has engaged in . . . a homosexual act") and the self-identification ("the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual") remained grounds for separation from military service. This was the state of the law until September 2011."

Goodwin graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1993 and Sprigg argues that if she engaged in any "homosexual conduct" prior to 2011, then she violated the law and is incapable of upholding the Air Force Honor Code.

As such, he insists that the Senate question Goodwin on this matter during its hearings:

"In light of this, it should be clear that the issue involving Goodwin's integrity is not just limited to how she may or may not have answered a question in 1993 or 1994. Whether she complied with federal law regarding eligibility for military service relates to both her sexual conduct and her sexual attractions at any point up until September 2011.

To be specific-if anyone at any point during Goodwin's accession into the military and the repeal of the 1993 law in 2011, engaged in a homosexual act, they would have been in violation of the law (both the 1993 law and possibly the law against sodomy in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) and subject to separation from the military. If, during that time, a person experienced same-sex sexual attractions, it could be interpreted as "a propensity . . . to engage in homosexual acts."

In my research on Goodwin's career, I have not found any published evidence that she violated the law. [Mikey] Weinstein, citing a source he says spoke with Goodwin, declared in his complaint that Goodwin "relates that she did not become aware of her sexual orientation until well after DADT went into effect."

However, there is nothing to prevent members of the Senate from raising these questions, as well as questions about her commitment to freedom of speech and religion for cadets. They may be crucial to determining whether she is suitable for promotion, or fit to command the Air Force Academy-and, as God and Country pointed out, to oversee its honor code."

Also this... http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/oklahoma-republicans-pass-bill-requiring-state-officials-to-call-abortion-murder-in-public-statements/

Oklahoma lawmakers have passed legislation that would require officials to consider abortion to be murder.

The Tulsa World reported a law was passed Monday afternoon that would force any state official to defy the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized privacy for the procedure. It was also done without any discussion or debate on the House floor.

The bill's author, Republican state Rep. Chuck Strohm, spoke after the bill's passage claiming the high court violated "every act of decency and law" when it decided Roe v. Wade. He declared the founding documents of the United States were abused by "forcing the murder of unborn children on our society."

He went on to tell his fellow officials that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution and "to exercise their authority as appropriate in their respective jurisdictions to stop the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion."

While the Republican state official would force the hand of his fellow lawmakers, the legislation actually has no official bearing on the law itself. So, women could not be prosecuted for the procedure using this new law, it merely forces the rhetoric and commentary by elected officials, which might violate the First Amendment.

Strohm insisted the 10th and 14th amendments to the Constitution mean "no one - not a doctor, not a father or a mother - has rights that allow them to murder an unborn child" and the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to decide the case.

Oklahoma is suffering from a nearly $900 million budget shortfall for which the legislature has yet to pass a budget to fix.

This "At least the right doesn't silence it's opposition or get people fired" line seriously needs to stop, or are these somehow the fault of the left wing also?

The right has always been about authoritarianism. How much depends on how far to the right they are. Their rhetoric about the left stepping on free speech is just a projection. They don't give a shit about free speech. Never have and never will. It's not in their nature. Right-wing attracts a certain element of society that is simply not interested in equality and liberty. They want the right to free hate speech and the right to discriminate. They want to have more rights than others who they deem to be inferior in some way. That's what freedom means to them. And if they can't have that, they feel oppressed.

Such respect for human rights and privacy. What have they got against females anyway? Can we get a bill forcing officials to refer to them as passive-aggressive genocidal psychopaths then? Fair's only fair.

It seems that it's only a problem when other people do it.

You mean that people involved in GamerGate might not have been right wingers after all, so used to seeing them do that, and might have felt like the left betrayed itself attempting to embrace tactics that are incredibly authoritarian and by and large antithetical to liberal societies?

Can't be. Surely only the left does these things. And naturally everyone in favour of freeze peach is a Nazi.

Remember; no bad tactics, only bad targets!

Freedom of speech/expression shouldn't be held up as left/right issues. This is no more sensible in the modern world then holding up slavery as a left/right issue. There are authoritarians who will try to restrict your rights and the rights of others on the extreme of the left and the right. There was Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Neither left nor right hold a sacred place in 'not fucking up.' Going extreme is often the biggest mistake anyone and any society can make. Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically.

Oh and 'call out culture' sucks. It isn't helpful. After all if you believe in call outs like this, you don't realise that the problem isn't merely one of left or right aligned politics, rather one of extremes of the left and right.

Namehere:
Going extreme is often the biggest mistake anyone and any society can make. Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically.

That depends on the "extreme". Extremism in North Korea (or, indeed, monarchic Europe 500 years ago) would be holding elections, giving people the right to vote, airing the viewpoints of opponents. All of that stuff is also right.

I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind.

Silvanus:

Namehere:
Going extreme is often the biggest mistake anyone and any society can make. Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically.

That depends on the "extreme". Extremism in North Korea (or, indeed, monarchic Europe 500 years ago) would be holding elections, giving people the right to vote, airing the viewpoints of opponents. All of that stuff is also right.

I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind.

God damn... you mean a term like 'extreme' is a relativistic term, like... like 'big'?

Don't be an extremist within your own political system. Change doesn't stick when you reach it through extremes because either those extremes can't be replicated, or they collapse all the stability around them. And yea, giving starving peasants a direct say in the actions of their governments - actions they had little or no understanding of at that point - likely would have been a bad thing. I mean hell, left to their own devices, the peasants of Europe would gladly have brought to a crashing halt the Enlightenment, and saw most of the periods geniuses, the guys who shaped how we view science and technology and society today, as companions of Satan in dire need of a burn off. So yea, that radical - that extreme - a change in governmental system and policies, would have proven bad. So bad in fact that there may not be a single democratic state on Earth today, had that been how they formed to begin with. Let's not forget the horrific stumbling of French Democracy, or American for that matter, or the very slow development of the British Parliamentary system. An over night change of huge magnitude is often a bad thing.

We have all the joys of Iraq, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya... The list goes on, and that's just the last twenty years of imposing radical changes of government structure over night, and hoping things just work out. Extremism tends to be bad. Sometimes a society needs to be a little less liberal or a little more, but being extreme is often 'reactionary.' And often knee-jerk reactions see yous laming your knee into a desk top. Or in other words, really harming your country and society.

Silvanus:

Namehere:
Going extreme is often the biggest mistake anyone and any society can make. Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically.

That depends on the "extreme". Extremism in North Korea (or, indeed, monarchic Europe 500 years ago) would be holding elections, giving people the right to vote, airing the viewpoints of opponents. All of that stuff is also right.

I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind.

If one side is usually much more extreme than the other, then you don't have to worry; because the middle ground will never be on the center of the scale.

Namehere:

God damn... you mean a term like 'extreme' is a relativistic term, like... like 'big'?

Don't be an extremist within your own political system. Change doesn't stick when you reach it through extremes because either those extremes can't be replicated, or they collapse all the stability around them. And yea, giving starving peasants a direct say in the actions of their governments - actions they had little or no understanding of at that point - likely would have been a bad thing. I mean hell, left to their own devices, the peasants of Europe would gladly have brought to a crashing halt the Enlightenment, and saw most of the periods geniuses, the guys who shaped how we view science and technology and society today, as companions of Satan in dire need of a burn off. So yea, that radical - that extreme - a change in governmental system and policies, would have proven bad. So bad in fact that there may not be a single democratic state on Earth today, had that been how they formed to begin with. Let's not forget the horrific stumbling of French Democracy, or American for that matter, or the very slow development of the British Parliamentary system. An over night change of huge magnitude is often a bad thing.

This is just choosing several examples of times progress at too great a speed might have proven disastrous. Yet progress was still frequently made through "extreme" efforts which, nonetheless, were better than what came before. Stonewall might have been termed "extreme", but was right. Civil rights marches before civil rights were widely recognised. Slave uprisings.

Namehere:

We have all the joys of Iraq, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya... The list goes on, and that's just the last twenty years of imposing radical changes of government structure over night, and hoping things just work out. Extremism tends to be bad. Sometimes a society needs to be a little less liberal or a little more, but being extreme is often 'reactionary.' And often knee-jerk reactions see yous laming your knee into a desk top. Or in other words, really harming your country and society.

We also have a laundry-list of Western countries attempting to prop-up terrible regimes overseas, such as Batista, in order to maintain the status quo and avoid radical change. This, too, was wrong. We can both bring up disparate examples, but it's not the most compelling approach.

Don't really get the point, some people on the right wing are shitty, big whoop. It doesn't say anything about the majority, the left or anything for that matter. Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Silvanus:

Namehere:

God damn... you mean a term like 'extreme' is a relativistic term, like... like 'big'?

Don't be an extremist within your own political system. Change doesn't stick when you reach it through extremes because either those extremes can't be replicated, or they collapse all the stability around them. And yea, giving starving peasants a direct say in the actions of their governments - actions they had little or no understanding of at that point - likely would have been a bad thing. I mean hell, left to their own devices, the peasants of Europe would gladly have brought to a crashing halt the Enlightenment, and saw most of the periods geniuses, the guys who shaped how we view science and technology and society today, as companions of Satan in dire need of a burn off. So yea, that radical - that extreme - a change in governmental system and policies, would have proven bad. So bad in fact that there may not be a single democratic state on Earth today, had that been how they formed to begin with. Let's not forget the horrific stumbling of French Democracy, or American for that matter, or the very slow development of the British Parliamentary system. An over night change of huge magnitude is often a bad thing.

This is just choosing several examples of times progress at too great a speed might have proven disastrous. Yet progress was still frequently made through "extreme" efforts which, nonetheless, were better than what came before. Stonewall might have been termed "extreme", but was right. Civil rights marches before civil rights were widely recognised. Slave uprisings.

Namehere:

We have all the joys of Iraq, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya... The list goes on, and that's just the last twenty years of imposing radical changes of government structure over night, and hoping things just work out. Extremism tends to be bad. Sometimes a society needs to be a little less liberal or a little more, but being extreme is often 'reactionary.' And often knee-jerk reactions see yous laming your knee into a desk top. Or in other words, really harming your country and society.

We also have a laundry-list of Western countries attempting to prop-up terrible regimes overseas, such as Batista, in order to maintain the status quo and avoid radical change. This, too, was wrong. We can both bring up disparate examples, but it's not the most compelling approach.

What does any of the 'laundry-list of Western countries' have to do with 'extremes' within your own political system? It has nothing to do with that. Was the Stonewall riot comprised of congressmen and senators? No? Then I guess maybe the mob got upset and politics reacted. That isn't extreme. Extreme, in this context, is obviously political. Is your party advocating for Abortion rights? Is your party doing that in the UK or is your party doing that Ethiopia? I'd imagine, deeply religious Ethiopia, would view pro abortion views as extreme, in their system. I'd imagine most of the UK would shrug it off. I know, I know, Ireland. I know. But I hope you get the point.

In the western world, the suspension of free speech/expression is itself an extremist position. Most governments might skirt the edges, but they never try to legislate out the notion entirely, rather - again - skirting the edges so as to be: extreme. Authoritarian policy, in a liberal democratic state, is putting forward extremist positions. In Nazi Germany as in Soviet Russia authoritarian policy was the norm, a centrist position to legislated from.

And just because one doesn't agree entirely with any political platform, doesn't make one an extremist, any more then necessarily agreeing wholeheartedly with one does. There is a centre to the political spectrum of individual states. There is a political spectrum, that can't to my mind rationally be argued against. So yes, there are centrist positions, and no those aren't always for the status quo. Ideas gain traction. A guaranteed annual income was an extreme position in Canada back in the 90s, now it's gaining a lot of traction and becoming more and more centrist as more and more people agree with it. Is that a lack of progress there to your mind?

Technology changes, and we change along with it. Yesterdays limits are behind us and accordingly our centrist policies based on our abilities today are extreme by contrast to those of yesterday. That doesn't mean there isn't a centrist position or that one must be an extremist to 'make progress.' Progress in that terminology is arguably vapid, by the way. After all what you might call progress others might call a step in the wrong direction. We're all human and for all that makes us similar it also makes us different.

I find the tribalism of Afghani politics and culture personally repellent. The idea of ethnocentric nation states annoys me. With that said, I'd be a fool to think I could merely unfold a whole new system and expect the old to just wither and die - which is exactly what we did in Afghanistan. Well the old died, literally, and where once were fortified borders thanks to tribe leading warlords who kept the Taliban in check, now is open conflict area. Mostly because we didn't know what we were doing and the extreme changes we made to that country's political structure were ineffective given it's society. Extreme changes are almost always bad.

Saying the west props up corrupt regimes does nothing to change my argument that extremes are bad and that in a liberal society authoritarian legislation is extremist, regardless of whether the left or right wing espouses it. The abolition of free speech/expression or the repression of it for certain groups is authoritarian and extreme in modern western society.

Namehere:

What does any of the 'laundry-list of Western countries' have to do with 'extremes' within your own political system? It has nothing to do with that.

...It has exactly as much relation to our own political system as do the interventions you listed. You listed interventions that were radical in nature; I listed interventions that were conservative in nature, in order to demonstrate that extreme change is not necessarily the source of the problem.

Namehere:

Was the Stonewall riot comprised of congressmen and senators? No? Then I guess maybe the mob got upset and politics reacted. That isn't extreme. Extreme, in this context, is obviously political. Is your party advocating for Abortion rights? Is your party doing that in the UK or is your party doing that Ethiopia? I'd imagine, deeply religious Ethiopia, would view pro abortion views as extreme, in their system. I'd imagine most of the UK would shrug it off. I know, I know, Ireland. I know. But I hope you get the point.

In the western world, the suspension of free speech/expression is itself an extremist position. Most governments might skirt the edges, but they never try to legislate out the notion entirely, rather - again - skirting the edges so as to be: extreme. Authoritarian policy, in a liberal democratic state, is putting forward extremist positions. In Nazi Germany as in Soviet Russia authoritarian policy was the norm, a centrist position to legislated from.

And just because one doesn't agree entirely with any political platform, doesn't make one an extremist, any more then necessarily agreeing wholeheartedly with one does. There is a centre to the political spectrum of individual states. There is a political spectrum, that can't to my mind rationally be argued against. So yes, there are centrist positions, and no those aren't always for the status quo. Ideas gain traction. A guaranteed annual income was an extreme position in Canada back in the 90s, now it's gaining a lot of traction and becoming more and more centrist as more and more people agree with it. Is that a lack of progress there to your mind?

I'm having trouble understanding what's being argued, here. It is stating the obvious that what is extreme in one country is not extreme in another, and vice versa. In fact, that's rather the crux of my argument.

Namehere:

Technology changes, and we change along with it. Yesterdays limits are behind us and accordingly our centrist policies based on our abilities today are extreme by contrast to those of yesterday. That doesn't mean there isn't a centrist position or that one must be an extremist to 'make progress.' Progress in that terminology is arguably vapid, by the way. After all what you might call progress others might call a step in the wrong direction. We're all human and for all that makes us similar it also makes us different.

What's your point, here? Obviously one does not need to be an extremist to "make progress"; nobody said otherwise. I merely said that when the status quo is abhorrent, advocating extreme change is often right. Nothing here is really arguing against that proposition of mine.

Silvanus:

Namehere:

What does any of the 'laundry-list of Western countries' have to do with 'extremes' within your own political system? It has nothing to do with that.

...It has exactly as much relation to our own political system as do the interventions you listed. You listed interventions that were radical in nature; I listed interventions that were conservative in nature, in order to demonstrate that extreme change is not necessarily the source of the problem.

Namehere:

Was the Stonewall riot comprised of congressmen and senators? No? Then I guess maybe the mob got upset and politics reacted. That isn't extreme. Extreme, in this context, is obviously political. Is your party advocating for Abortion rights? Is your party doing that in the UK or is your party doing that Ethiopia? I'd imagine, deeply religious Ethiopia, would view pro abortion views as extreme, in their system. I'd imagine most of the UK would shrug it off. I know, I know, Ireland. I know. But I hope you get the point.

In the western world, the suspension of free speech/expression is itself an extremist position. Most governments might skirt the edges, but they never try to legislate out the notion entirely, rather - again - skirting the edges so as to be: extreme. Authoritarian policy, in a liberal democratic state, is putting forward extremist positions. In Nazi Germany as in Soviet Russia authoritarian policy was the norm, a centrist position to legislated from.

And just because one doesn't agree entirely with any political platform, doesn't make one an extremist, any more then necessarily agreeing wholeheartedly with one does. There is a centre to the political spectrum of individual states. There is a political spectrum, that can't to my mind rationally be argued against. So yes, there are centrist positions, and no those aren't always for the status quo. Ideas gain traction. A guaranteed annual income was an extreme position in Canada back in the 90s, now it's gaining a lot of traction and becoming more and more centrist as more and more people agree with it. Is that a lack of progress there to your mind?

I'm having trouble understanding what's being argued, here. It is stating the obvious that what is extreme in one country is not extreme in another, and vice versa. In fact, that's rather the crux of my argument.

Namehere:

Technology changes, and we change along with it. Yesterdays limits are behind us and accordingly our centrist policies based on our abilities today are extreme by contrast to those of yesterday. That doesn't mean there isn't a centrist position or that one must be an extremist to 'make progress.' Progress in that terminology is arguably vapid, by the way. After all what you might call progress others might call a step in the wrong direction. We're all human and for all that makes us similar it also makes us different.

What's your point, here? Obviously one does not need to be an extremist to "make progress"; nobody said otherwise. I merely said that when the status quo is abhorrent, advocating extreme change is often right. Nothing here is really arguing against that proposition of mine.

I'm arguing that those aren't 'conservative' interventions. The third world countries that are 'propped up' by western powers aren't interfered with the way that Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Receiving funding, as a local politician whose run in his/her country, from western sources is a great deal less 'extreme' then having our armies roll in, destroy your present governmental system, then impose their own. If a country is used to being run by a military dictatorship, supporting a different military dictator, isn't an extreme shift in that country. Some policy shifts might be radical and over night, but most likely they won't be. We'll just have mineral rights, cheaper labor, whatever it is the last dictator wasn't interested in providing, and all the rest will remain similar. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

The status quo isn't abhorrent in the western world. I don't see people getting their cars and motor bikes 'confiscated' by the police today in the roads. I didn't see it yesterday. A local hero in Afghanistan was stopped at a regular police check point. So he took the keys out of his motor bike and tossed them away. He walked it home, after a severe beating by the police, who otherwise wold have stolen it. That's an extremely bad situation, made that way because we got rid of the Taliban. Bad as they were apparently they actually had some concept of order. Now it's a free for-all loot fest among the local Afghan police authorities. Were the Taliban bad? Were they extremely bad? Was beheading stadium a good thing? But... what of what replaced them? An extreme reaction that has not amounted to any good at all. You know what was better then either the Taliban or the current corrupt drug dealing government? The monarchy. Primitive? Politically? Absolutely. Also effective. Now we have the Taliban, because the people who kicked out the Russians were too tribal to build a state, so the Taliban did.

Where is extremism necessary in the west today? Extreme domestic acts are hardly going to adjust foreign policy. Extremism is usually not the answer to anyone's problems, especially not immediate problems.

I can't understand why you'd have replied at all to my post. You made this statement: "I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind." Obviously you seem to think extremism is called for. I've handed you a bevy of times, some merely the logical conclusions of your hypotheticals most real world examples where extremism was in fact an error of incalculable damage to the places and people it was tried with. You have yet to justify your position.

I'll be clear one last time in my assertion. In a liberal society - that is the West as the term liberal is used classically not politically in this context - the restriction of freedom of speech/expression is an extremist position and is not restricted to either the extreme left of right but rather used by both. And that such practices are antithetical to the function of a liberal society, meaning anyone espousing such things is a probable danger to the public and the political and social structure they live in.

Namehere:

I'm arguing that those aren't 'conservative' interventions. The third world countries that are 'propped up' by western powers aren't interfered with the way that Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Receiving funding, as a local politician whose run in his/her country, from western sources is a great deal less 'extreme' then having our armies roll in, destroy your present governmental system, then impose their own. If a country is used to being run by a military dictatorship, supporting a different military dictator, isn't an extreme shift in that country. Some policy shifts might be radical and over night, but most likely they won't be. We'll just have mineral rights, cheaper labor, whatever it is the last dictator wasn't interested in providing, and all the rest will remain similar. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

I'm not talking about "receiving funding"; I'm talking about military intervention in order to prop up a supportive authoritarian regime. That's why I used Batista as an example, but there are others. Such approaches do not represent radical change, but are extremely harmful nonetheless, which was my entire point.

Namehere:
The status quo isn't abhorrent in the western world. I don't see people getting their cars and motor bikes 'confiscated' by the police today in the roads. I didn't see it yesterday. A local hero in Afghanistan was stopped at a regular police check point. So he took the keys out of his motor bike and tossed them away. He walked it home, after a severe beating by the police, who otherwise wold have stolen it. That's an extremely bad situation, made that way because we got rid of the Taliban. Bad as they were apparently they actually had some concept of order. Now it's a free for-all loot fest among the local Afghan police authorities. Were the Taliban bad? Were they extremely bad? Was beheading stadium a good thing? But... what of what replaced them? An extreme reaction that has not amounted to any good at all. You know what was better then either the Taliban or the current corrupt drug dealing government? The monarchy. Primitive? Politically? Absolutely. Also effective. Now we have the Taliban, because the people who kicked out the Russians were too tribal to build a state, so the Taliban did.

Where is extremism necessary in the west today? Extreme domestic acts are hardly going to adjust foreign policy. Extremism is usually not the answer to anyone's problems, especially not immediate problems.

There is a mixture of two very different arguments here. First is the argument about the Western world. Extremism is not a desirable approach in the Western world, but I was not solely talking about the Western world. I was wary of extrapolating that complacency to the rest of the world, or the rest of history, where things we consider absolutely essential for a just society would be considered "extreme".

Second is the argument about Afghanistan, which seems to state that since the reaction against the Afghan Monarchy was both extreme and bad, therefore any radical overhaul is undesirable. It should be obvious why this doesn't follow.

Namehere:

I can't understand why you'd have replied at all to my post. You made this statement: "I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind." Obviously you seem to think extremism is called for. I've handed you a bevy of times, some merely the logical conclusions of your hypotheticals most real world examples where extremism was in fact an error of incalculable damage to the places and people it was tried with. You have yet to justify your position.

What?! That's because you're reading frankly absurd extrapolations into my statement. Not believing that "the middle ground" is always right does not somehow translate to an endorsement of extremism, for one thing. There is a goddamn sea of middle ground.

Second of all, you've handed me a loosely-connected bunch of scenarios in which extremism has resulted in undesirable consequences. Why on earth does that threaten my position? It is an irrelevance at best, because I have never stated that extremism never results in undesirable consequences.

Namehere:
You mean that people involved in GamerGate might not have been right wingers after all

They were raising glasses and toasting Matt Forney and Milo. That view of mine ain't changed.

Can't be. Surely only the left does these things. And naturally everyone in favour of freeze peach is a Nazi.

My point is that people liek GamerGate don't want free speech. Or at least, they want free speech when it agrees with right wing ideals and politics.

Remember; no bad tactics, only bad targets!

Works for them as well as the SJW camp.

Freedom of speech/expression shouldn't be held up as left/right issues.

Yet somehow it usually does...funny...

There are authoritarians who will try to restrict your rights and the rights of others on the extreme of the left and the right.

But I'm told ONE of those is actually doing it for my own good and for the sake of freedom. And it ain't the left...

Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically.

So why isn't that centrism trotted out when the right wing is the one shoveling the authoritarian shit? Once again, I sure as shit never saw GamerGate get up in arms when the NRA was touting the old "video games make kids killers" line. I never saw them give Gavin McGinnis the same garbage they gave Anita despite them both saying that videogames were the toys of shitlord manbabies.

After all if you believe in call outs like this, you don't realise that the problem isn't merely one of left or right aligned politics, rather one of extremes of the left and right.

I'd take it out of your more seriously if you applied it equally instead of only bringing out this talk when it's a left oriented assertion, and giving a pass to right wing ones. Go preach your centrism over at places like FreeRepublic, /pol/, /r/edpill or /r/incel and I'll believe you.

inu-kun:
Don't really get the point, some people on the right wing are shitty, big whoop.

Yea. I had to remind people of that.

Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

You tell me.

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Well, here's the thing about that. Right authoritarians and left anti-heterosexual hatred. Which of the two have people in office passing laws?

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Well, here's the thing about that. Right authoritarians and left anti-heterosexual hatred. Which of the two have people in office passing laws?

Also important, which one ever had laws passed in their favor in the first place?

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Ohh yeah, terrible stuff that. Lots of outrageous anti-hetrosexual laws being put into practice these days.

I'm very worried. I expect the gaystapo to kick down my door any day now.

inu-kun:
Don't really get the point, some people on the right wing are shitty, big whoop. It doesn't say anything about the majority, the left or anything for that matter. Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Hell ignore anti-heterosexual hatred on the left, what about anti-homosexual hatred on the left? People tend to forget how much homophobia there is amongst the black and Latino community (to the point white Republicans are tolerate by comparison), to the point it's the reason why Prop 8 passed because of it, as it failed amongst white voters.

Zhukov:

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Ohh yeah, terrible stuff that. Lots of outrageous anti-hetrosexual laws being put into practice these days.

I'm very worried. I expect the gaystapo to kick down my door any day now.

I've actually been engaged in a fake gay relationship for years in the hopes that far left don't find me.

I mean, it's trying, maintaining the facade in public, but it's worth it for me and my "boyfriend" to not be persecuted by the DPRGay for being straight.

that portmanteau was terrible what have i become

"Ooh, look. I've found two stories that match my particular view on life. Let's make sweeping conclusions against large amounts of the population based on them".

Zontar:

inu-kun:
Don't really get the point, some people on the right wing are shitty, big whoop. It doesn't say anything about the majority, the left or anything for that matter. Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Hell ignore anti-heterosexual hatred on the left, what about anti-homosexual hatred on the left? People tend to forget how much homophobia there is amongst the black and Latino community (to the point white Republicans are tolerate by comparison), to the point it's the reason why Prop 8 passed because of it, as it failed amongst white voters.

So which party is the anti gay legislation and rhetoric coming from?

Smithnikov:

Zontar:

inu-kun:
Don't really get the point, some people on the right wing are shitty, big whoop. It doesn't say anything about the majority, the left or anything for that matter. Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Hell ignore anti-heterosexual hatred on the left, what about anti-homosexual hatred on the left? People tend to forget how much homophobia there is amongst the black and Latino community (to the point white Republicans are tolerate by comparison), to the point it's the reason why Prop 8 passed because of it, as it failed amongst white voters.

So which party is the anti gay legislation and rhetoric coming from?

If we're being blunt, both.

Catnip1024:
"Ooh, look. I've found two stories that match my particular view on life. Let's make sweeping conclusions against large amounts of the population based on them".

The second story is about a bill that was actually passed. It's not one loony on the fringe, but a majority of legislators in a given state. A large amount of the population - if not a majority - voted for those legislators to represent them.

Zontar:
If we're being blunt, both.

OK. But how about if we're being honest?

Adam Jensen:

Zontar:
If we're being blunt, both.

OK. But how about if we're being honest?

Yeah, "Both sides do it!" might be the best kind of true, but one side is deeply committed to it, to the extent of winning elections in part by it. The other could be better, but is not nearly as bad.

Zontar:

Smithnikov:

Zontar:

Hell ignore anti-heterosexual hatred on the left, what about anti-homosexual hatred on the left? People tend to forget how much homophobia there is amongst the black and Latino community (to the point white Republicans are tolerate by comparison), to the point it's the reason why Prop 8 passed because of it, as it failed amongst white voters.

So which party is the anti gay legislation and rhetoric coming from?

If we're being blunt, both.

I'm struggling to remember the anti-LGBT legislation the left has passed in recent years.

Smithnikov:

Namehere:
You mean that people involved in GamerGate might not have been right wingers after all

They were raising glasses and toasting Matt Forney and Milo. That view of mine ain't changed.

Can't be. Surely only the left does these things. And naturally everyone in favour of freeze peach is a Nazi.

My point is that people liek GamerGate don't want free speech. Or at least, they want free speech when it agrees with right wing ideals and politics.

Remember; no bad tactics, only bad targets!

Works for them as well as the SJW camp.

Freedom of speech/expression shouldn't be held up as left/right issues.

Yet somehow it usually does...funny...

There are authoritarians who will try to restrict your rights and the rights of others on the extreme of the left and the right.

But I'm told ONE of those is actually doing it for my own good and for the sake of freedom. And it ain't the left...

Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically.

So why isn't that centrism trotted out when the right wing is the one shoveling the authoritarian shit? Once again, I sure as shit never saw GamerGate get up in arms when the NRA was touting the old "video games make kids killers" line. I never saw them give Gavin McGinnis the same garbage they gave Anita despite them both saying that videogames were the toys of shitlord manbabies.

After all if you believe in call outs like this, you don't realise that the problem isn't merely one of left or right aligned politics, rather one of extremes of the left and right.

I'd take it out of your more seriously if you applied it equally instead of only bringing out this talk when it's a left oriented assertion, and giving a pass to right wing ones. Go preach your centrism over at places like FreeRepublic, /pol/, /r/edpill or /r/incel and I'll believe you.

So you agree you just hate the right wing so much you can't set it aside? I mean you realise you're being wagged here, right?

And being authoritarian doesn't ascribe motive. A person whose authoritarian conduct is seen by them as being for 'your own good,' won't stop, they can't stop it would be wrong. And the left and the right have those. Then of course there's the other kind, the kind that just want power. All you've really said is that you insist on continuing to ensconce the issue in left right dynamic because of talking heads and everyone else.

And constantly claiming that 'some people' did and 'some people' didn't complain about this or that outlet? Really? Gavin McInnes isn't exactly a household name. GG wasn't exactly full of politically astute people. And frankly, why do I have to go plumb the depths of the right wing to express the opinion that something isn't a left right issue? What does redit have anything to do with anything in this discussion?

Don't believe me. I'm not here to pass purity tests for you.

I've expressed my opinion, it's sound, based in sound reasoning and I stand by it. Free speech isn't a partisan issue. You've proven it after all, two years after GG and here you are complaining about it. Well if GG was all right wing psychos, you two share a common problem. If it wasn't, and it wasn't, there's still a good chance that this is a non partisan issue, provided you can keep the partisan shit at bay for a few seconds at least. After all the right and the left wing of politics don't want their free speech impeded. You'd think that alone would bring them together instead of seeing them playing weasel games to try and shut one another down.

Silvanus:

Namehere:

I'm arguing that those aren't 'conservative' interventions. The third world countries that are 'propped up' by western powers aren't interfered with the way that Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Receiving funding, as a local politician whose run in his/her country, from western sources is a great deal less 'extreme' then having our armies roll in, destroy your present governmental system, then impose their own. If a country is used to being run by a military dictatorship, supporting a different military dictator, isn't an extreme shift in that country. Some policy shifts might be radical and over night, but most likely they won't be. We'll just have mineral rights, cheaper labor, whatever it is the last dictator wasn't interested in providing, and all the rest will remain similar. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

I'm not talking about "receiving funding"; I'm talking about military intervention in order to prop up a supportive authoritarian regime. That's why I used Batista as an example, but there are others. Such approaches do not represent radical change, but are extremely harmful nonetheless, which was my entire point.

Namehere:
The status quo isn't abhorrent in the western world. I don't see people getting their cars and motor bikes 'confiscated' by the police today in the roads. I didn't see it yesterday. A local hero in Afghanistan was stopped at a regular police check point. So he took the keys out of his motor bike and tossed them away. He walked it home, after a severe beating by the police, who otherwise wold have stolen it. That's an extremely bad situation, made that way because we got rid of the Taliban. Bad as they were apparently they actually had some concept of order. Now it's a free for-all loot fest among the local Afghan police authorities. Were the Taliban bad? Were they extremely bad? Was beheading stadium a good thing? But... what of what replaced them? An extreme reaction that has not amounted to any good at all. You know what was better then either the Taliban or the current corrupt drug dealing government? The monarchy. Primitive? Politically? Absolutely. Also effective. Now we have the Taliban, because the people who kicked out the Russians were too tribal to build a state, so the Taliban did.

Where is extremism necessary in the west today? Extreme domestic acts are hardly going to adjust foreign policy. Extremism is usually not the answer to anyone's problems, especially not immediate problems.

There is a mixture of two very different arguments here. First is the argument about the Western world. Extremism is not a desirable approach in the Western world, but I was not solely talking about the Western world. I was wary of extrapolating that complacency to the rest of the world, or the rest of history, where things we consider absolutely essential for a just society would be considered "extreme".

Second is the argument about Afghanistan, which seems to state that since the reaction against the Afghan Monarchy was both extreme and bad, therefore any radical overhaul is undesirable. It should be obvious why this doesn't follow.

Namehere:

I can't understand why you'd have replied at all to my post. You made this statement: "I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind." Obviously you seem to think extremism is called for. I've handed you a bevy of times, some merely the logical conclusions of your hypotheticals most real world examples where extremism was in fact an error of incalculable damage to the places and people it was tried with. You have yet to justify your position.

What?! That's because you're reading frankly absurd extrapolations into my statement. Not believing that "the middle ground" is always right does not somehow translate to an endorsement of extremism, for one thing. There is a goddamn sea of middle ground.

Second of all, you've handed me a loosely-connected bunch of scenarios in which extremism has resulted in undesirable consequences. Why on earth does that threaten my position? It is an irrelevance at best, because I have never stated that extremism never results in undesirable consequences.

So... you went 'way' off topic. The context of my comment on extremism was that it would be an extreme political and social change to remove freedom of speech/expression from the west. And that it would be bad.

What of my post you quoted: "Going extreme is often the biggest mistake anyone and any society can make. Best to try and find a middle ground in all things. Balance isn't easy and it sure isn't sexy - at least not politically."

Your response: "That depends on the "extreme". Extremism in North Korea (or, indeed, monarchic Europe 500 years ago) would be holding elections, giving people the right to vote, airing the viewpoints of opponents. All of that stuff is also right.

I do not believe the middle ground is the best approach, because I do not believe myself to be halfway incorrect. If I did, I would change my mind."

Contextually there is nothing to qualify this statement to mean anything other then the interpretation I gave it. It is not an absurd extrapolation. You left no qualifiers at all. I must take the sentence, in context, at face value or ascribe motive/reason to it. I took it at face value. The fault is not in interpretation.

Isn't it weird people think that the upper 0,001 percent of the population is a perfect encapsulation of the people that elected them, even when only like 40% of those people actually vote?

Oh right, confirmation bias.

It's about as weird as people still believing that legislation is the only force that shapes and changes society, not the population that live within it.

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Well, here's the thing about that. Right authoritarians and left anti-heterosexual hatred. Which of the two have people in office passing laws?

There's probably plenty of stupid legislation from the left side too, but I don't live in the USA or care much to research it for a contest which political side is the dumbest (it's both).

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Well, here's the thing about that. Right authoritarians and left anti-heterosexual hatred. Which of the two have people in office passing laws?

There's probably plenty of stupid legislation from the left side too, but I don't live in the USA or care much to research it for a contest which political side is the dumbest (it's both).

"There's probably"

There isn't

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Is anti-heterosexual hatred represents the left or that doesn't count?

Well, here's the thing about that. Right authoritarians and left anti-heterosexual hatred. Which of the two have people in office passing laws?

There's probably plenty of stupid legislation from the left side too, but I don't live in the USA or care much to research it for a contest which political side is the dumbest (it's both).

Let me save you the trouble. There's no anti heterosexual legislation in this country.

Adam Jensen:
OK. But how about if we're being honest?

Even if Sean Spicer "honestly" believes all the shit he says each and every day, that does not change the fact that the majority of what he says has no basis in reality.

And, statements like...

Adam Jensen:
The right has always been about authoritarianism. How much depends on how far to the right they are. Their rhetoric about the left stepping on free speech is just a projection. They don't give a shit about free speech. Never have and never will. It's not in their nature.

... demonstrate the same level of intellectual accuracy and connection to reality as Mr. Spicer's comments on "Holocaust centers".

But, I suppose it is just easier to fight your enemies, when they are all made of straw.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here