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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Adam Jensen:

Zontar:
If we're being blunt, both.

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

Still both actually. The party isn't just the Federal level members, and Prop 8 didn't pass because of Republicans.

madwarper:

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.

I would like to point out that Spicer's comments about the Holocaust aren't actually wrong given how the Nazis did not in fact use chemical weapons on the battlefield due to their impracticability and chance of harming their own men. The fact some outlets tried to paint it as holocaust denial (which was not a battlefield but a controlled used in an environment that took away the random chance of it harming your own side that saw them not used in the war itself in the first place) is part of the reason the Fake News meme is as strong as it is.

Zontar:

I would like to point out that Spicer's comments about the Holocaust aren't actually wrong given how the Nazis did not in fact use chemical weapons on the battlefield due to their impracticability and chance of harming their own men. The fact some outlets tried to paint it as holocaust denial (which was not a battlefield but a controlled used in an environment that took away the random chance of it harming your own side that saw them not used in the war itself in the first place) is part of the reason the Fake News meme is as strong as it is.

Semantics

Using chemical weapons is using chemical weapons regardless of the context. He used chemicals to kill people.

I get you're from /pol/ but you don't have to stand up for Hitler this hard

Namehere:

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.

The NRA, however, is.

GG wasn't exactly full of politically astute people.

They were enough to chalk it all up to being liberals and the left wing's fault.

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

Ain't about being pure. It's about practicing what you preach. It's about putting yourself on a damn pedastal about how non partisan you supposedly are, when you're just pulling for one team like always.

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.

KiA is still a thing. /GamerGateHQ/ is still a thing. /GGrevolt/ is still a thing.

inu-kun:

There's probably plenty of stupid legislation from the left side too

Not on the LGBT issue.

I think people are pretty confused as to how political compasses work.

Most people put the political compass into 4 points.

It's not simply "Left" and "Right". There's more nuance to it than that.

Authoritarianism is not uniquely right wing. Left wing authoritarian takes the form of Communism, or socialism, or what have you. Right wing authoritarianism takes the form of Fascism.

The opposite of Authoritarian is Anarchy, or, whatever fancy term people want to use that doesn't sound so anarchist.

Full Right wing anarchy takes the form of Anarcho-capitalism, or whatever.

Full Left wing anarchy takes the form of "True Anarchy" or whatever.

Most people advocating for "Free speech" on the right side, are likely more leaning towards anarcho-capitalism, rather than Fascism.

It's possible to be against authoritarianism, which says that one must conform to specific views, orientations and whatever else, and be either right or left wing. It's not an exclusive thing.

Zontar:

I would like to point out that Spicer's comments about the Holocaust aren't actually wrong given how the Nazis did not in fact use chemical weapons on the battlefield due to their impracticability and chance of harming their own men. The fact some outlets tried to paint it as holocaust denial (which was not a battlefield but a controlled used in an environment that took away the random chance of it harming your own side that saw them not used in the war itself in the first place) is part of the reason the Fake News meme is as strong as it is.

The Nazis didn't give a fuck about their own men. Goering was very specific during the Nuremberg trials when he explained that the only thing that kept Nazi Germany from using its' stockpiles of chemical weapons in combat was that it was hard to control and that Germany lacked gasmasks for their horses, which meant they ran the risk of crippling their own (horse cart reliant) logistics. It was a decision based on the simple logic that it would hurt Germany more then its' enemies, who mainly used trucks for frontline and near frontline logistics.

It is also worth noting that Spicer's wording is "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons", which is obviously wrong. Zyklon B is very much a chemical weapon and it was used in exactly the conditions that Spicer was trying to condemn, against unarmed civilians. The Nazi regime even went a step further and made sure that those they deployed their chemical weapons against were confined in locked rooms prior to deploying their chemical weapons. It is a semantic sleight of hand to suggest that Spicer meant 'in combat' when the context made is only the wider WW2 and Assad seems to have deployed his weapons outside of combat.

Namehere:

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.

You also started listing examples of Western intervention in foreign states as examples of the dangers of extremism. My counter-argument about Western intervention directly addressed that.

Nobody is disputing that removing freedom of speech and expression in Western society would be bad. That's obvious.

Namehere:
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.

I left no qualifiers at all? You specifically referred to "Any society", and "all things". You had no qualifiers to begin with. You were speaking extraordinarily broadly, which is precisely why I took issue and listed far-flung examples in other countries and other time periods.

Smithnikov:

Namehere:

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.

The NRA, however, is.

GG wasn't exactly full of politically astute people.

They were enough to chalk it all up to being liberals and the left wing's fault.

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

Ain't about being pure. It's about practicing what you preach. It's about putting yourself on a damn pedastal about how non partisan you supposedly are, when you're just pulling for one team like always.

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.

KiA is still a thing. /GamerGateHQ/ is still a thing. /GGrevolt/ is still a thing.

I don't frequent KiA. I don't frequent GamerGateHQ I don't frequent GGrevolt - which last I heard was thoroughly debunked and disowned as a smear job against GG. Either way though, I don't frequent these places. The NRA's ridiculous stance on anything to do wiht guns is well known. Stop the trade in small arms. I defy you. If you think their stance on gaming is meaningful in any way compared to their stance on the proliferation of small arms and the amounts of money they dump into the US government specifically to sway the security council of the UN against arms proliferation treaties... you don't know the NRA.

I do practice what I preach, right here, where I preach. I don't go to these other sites. And even if I did go to them, would that mean I'd be obligated to present the times I'd said the same thing there? That would be... a purity test, wouldn't it?

As for the politically not so astute attributing the events in GG to the left... It was identity politics. It was leftist identity politics. It turned off the most liberal generation ever born that we're sure existed. Are you saying that Fox news supported Anita and company who shut down discussion on media collusion and corruption? Or was that leftwing media organisations? So who should - under those circumstances - those people have been upset with? Finally when radical leftists who want to 'dismantle the masters house with his own tools' appear on the scene, you better believe the radical right is nipping at their heels. That's the problem with 'extremists' they tend to invite their own.

Tap dance as much as you like. It's obvious that freedom of speech of expression is larger then a party issue and is bigger then a left/right divide. Are you done with the GG stuff now or? Because I'm not GG you know? I am not Spartacus. I'm just pointing out that apparently elements of the left and right of politics appreciate free speech. Maybe instead of snipping one another and cheering on your side when they attempt to suppress it, you ought to run out those rotten elements and support the right when they do the same.

Veylon:

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.

A bill which requires state officials to match the policy of the state in their statements is not stepping on free speech. The same way that it is not unreasonable to ban state officials from describing IS as freedom fighters.

Now, I'm not sure how it impinges on their personal lives - if they can be prosecuted for remarks outside of work, that's a different kettle of fish.

Catnip1024:

Veylon:

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.

A bill which requires state officials to match the policy of the state in their statements is not stepping on free speech. The same way that it is not unreasonable to ban state officials from describing IS as freedom fighters.

Now, I'm not sure how it impinges on their personal lives - if they can be prosecuted for remarks outside of work, that's a different kettle of fish.

The policy of the state is defined by the state officials, state officials who can have differing opinions on that policy. It is not set in stone. To force officials to characterize policy a specific way that matches only one of those groups' policy statements is quite literally the definition of quashing free speech

Silvanus:

Namehere:

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.

You also started listing examples of Western intervention in foreign states as examples of the dangers of extremism. My counter-argument about Western intervention directly addressed that.

Nobody is disputing that removing freedom of speech and expression in Western society would be bad. That's obvious.

Namehere:
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.

I left no qualifiers at all? You specifically referred to "Any society", and "all things". You had no qualifiers to begin with. You were speaking extraordinarily broadly, which is precisely why I took issue and listed far-flung examples in other countries and other time periods.

Then why would you suggest I misinterpreted you? You say yourself there were no qualifiers. Extreme shifts in society/politics are bad. I left no qualifier because I didn't deem one necessary. Your statement however requires qualification. It is the difference between stating that 'water is wet' - a universal reality - and 'sand is brown.' Well some sand is brown, some is red. The sand on a beach might be brown, might also be red though. Water? Universally wet. Taking a middle ground approach is situational, and to not be in the middle is not to necessarily be in the extreme. So it demands qualification. Extreme changes are bad.

So you have demonstrations of times when extremist politics put in place in a system hasn't lead to catastrophe, right? I mean if your going to take issue with my broad generalisation surely you can point to real world times when it wasn't a problem. I debunked your 500 years ago idea, I showed how it hasn't worked recently. I demonstrated that the sort of 'soft influence' you were talking about, including the use of armed force, wasn't the same as dissolving a country's government form and replacing it with another, over the course of months. Deposing one dictator for another isn't an extreme policy shift. The governmental systems remain the same and the society is more or less undisturbed because life just... goes on...

I also think this is an effort to defect from the point I've been trying to make. Liberal societies such as the western world require freedom of speech/expression. To remove them would be a mistake. With that said, it seems to me that neither the left or right wing seek to destroy their nations, they merely see different futures for them. And that neither of them, outside of extremists, sees a future without freedom of speech or expression, suggesting to me that this is fundamental beyond party lines and ought not to be played with for petty party politics point scoring.

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.

You do realize that is mostly from religion, which in this country is pretty tied to the right. The reason those groups tend not to vote for the right is that they remember the right trying to fuck them over or deny them rights. While they will vote against the gays, that issue tends to be a bit lower on their radar then the side that still waxes nostalgic about returning to segregation.

madwarper:
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.

Let's not pretend that both sides are equal. Democrats and the left as a whole is far from perfect and their current corporate leadership should be fired. But despite all of their flaws they can't hold a candle to how absurdly demented the right in the US has become. The GOP and by extension their voters have shifted so far to the right since Obama won in 2008, they're almost unrecognizable today. And yes, it's because Obama is black. That's obvious even to a blind person. To deny it is to deny reality. In what version of the universe is it not racist to question the birth place and the religion of the president because of his skin color and his name? The conspiracy theories about Obama were that he's not just a Muslim, but that he's secretly working with the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy America, that he wants to establish FEMA camps, that he's going to send death squads against the good southern Christian folk, that he'll put people in hobbit homes etc. And the list goes on. That wasn't because he was simply a Democrat. It was because he's black and he won.

When we talk about the GOP, we're talking about a party of Southern strategy. The party that would do anything to prevent the minorities from voting, the party that wants women to have less rights, LGBT community to have less rights, the party that wants Christians to have more rights than other religious groups, that wants to allow them to discriminate against others, the party that doesn't give two shits if the air, the water and food are poisonous as long as their precious corporations make a few extra bucks. The party that denies science. I could go on, but by now you get the fuckin' point.

And despite their comic book level of villainy, a large chunk of the population keeps voting for them. There's a certain point when you have to stop assuming that people are simply too stupid to know what the GOP is, and accept the simple fact that they truly are in favor of what the GOP really represents. And that's racism, bigotry and authoritarianism.

irishda:
The policy of the state is defined by the state officials, state officials who can have differing opinions on that policy. It is not set in stone. To force officials to characterize policy a specific way that matches only one of those groups' policy statements is quite literally the definition of quashing free speech

If you are making a statement on behalf of the state, that should align with the state outlook on matters. If you are acting on your own behalf, you should be free to say what you like. Which is why I qualified my remark. The text sounded as though it only applied when making official statements, rather than in debates etc.

Adam Jensen:
Let's not pretend that both sides are equal.

I don't pretend that sides are equal.

I, also, don't pretend that "sides" are monolithic blocks that are hive mind. The person that does that, of course, would be you. And, that sentiment is simply detached from reality. So, you can either come to the realization that not every person on the "right" is an authoritarian, or you can continue to be wrong.

It's your choice, but I would recommend the former over the latter.

The thing to keep in mind is that the people who are most against censorship from the left are the exact same people that spent the Bush years fighting religious policy making from the right. They haven't actually shifted their position at all, it's just that the left has gone so far to the extreme that they now call those people right wingers, and thereby try to lump them in with the right wing authoritarians they are actually also against.

There is a reason why a lot of people who used to take the piss out of creationists are now ranting about SJWs, because they are against dogmatic brainwashing no matter who does it.

Catnip1024:

irishda:
The policy of the state is defined by the state officials, state officials who can have differing opinions on that policy. It is not set in stone. To force officials to characterize policy a specific way that matches only one of those groups' policy statements is quite literally the definition of quashing free speech

If you are making a statement on behalf of the state, that should align with the state outlook on matters. If you are acting on your own behalf, you should be free to say what you like. Which is why I qualified my remark. The text sounded as though it only applied when making official statements, rather than in debates etc.

That ignores the crux of my point though. YOU are the state. The state is not an autonomous body that can dictate your position. The state's position is decided by the officials of the state. To force officials to hold a position on behalf of the state is to attempt to move the state into an autonomous body of its own opinions.

If this continues to de-thread into a GG thing I will kill it.

Back on topic.

Sole warning.

Worgen:

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.

You do realize that is mostly from religion, which in this country is pretty tied to the right. The reason those groups tend not to vote for the right is that they remember the right trying to fuck them over or deny them rights. While they will vote against the gays, that issue tends to be a bit lower on their radar then the side that still waxes nostalgic about returning to segregation.

If they remember things then why do they vote Democrat when it was the Democrats which overwhelmingly voted to oppress them, and the myth of the ideological flip was in reality just 2% of the party defecting?

And I don't see how this changes the fact that, in the case of Prop 8, it was in fact the Democrats and those who support them, who are predominately left leaning, who are the reason it passed.

Zontar:

Worgen:

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.

You do realize that is mostly from religion, which in this country is pretty tied to the right. The reason those groups tend not to vote for the right is that they remember the right trying to fuck them over or deny them rights. While they will vote against the gays, that issue tends to be a bit lower on their radar then the side that still waxes nostalgic about returning to segregation.

If they remember things then why do they vote Democrat when it was the Democrats which overwhelmingly voted to oppress them, and the myth of the ideological flip was in reality just 2% of the party defecting?

And I don't see how this changes the fact that, in the case of Prop 8, it was in fact the Democrats and those who support them, who are predominately left leaning, who are the reason it passed.

A. What the hell are you talking about?

B. The dems are the ones who passed civil rights, thats when the republicans got right wing and the dems got left.

C. Because as I said, while they won't vote for the party who countered civil rights, they tend to be more religious which means they will vote against the gays because the bible is shit.

Worgen:

A. What the hell are you talking about?

B. The dems are the ones who passed civil rights, thats when the republicans got right wing and the dems got left.

That's just it, the idea that the Democrats passed civil rights and that the parties flipped is a myth. The Civil Rights Act had just shy of twice as much opposition by the Democrats as it did the Republicans, and the party switch in the 60s didn't happen when you actually look at the platform of both parties. The Democrats just stopped being openly racist, but the GOP didn't get this suddent anti-black sentiment that people seem to pretend exists within the party.

C. Because as I said, while they won't vote for the party who countered civil rights, they tend to be more religious which means they will vote against the gays because the bible is shit.

So they'll vote consistently for the party that kept them down (and for whom it is ludicrously easy to argue are still doing so) unless the issue is a religious matter?

I know America's education system is considered bad, and that in poor areas it's even worst, but that just sounds... otherworldly.

Zontar:

Worgen:

A. What the hell are you talking about?

B. The dems are the ones who passed civil rights, thats when the republicans got right wing and the dems got left.

That's just it, the idea that the Democrats passed civil rights and that the parties flipped is a myth. The Civil Rights Act had just shy of twice as much opposition by the Democrats as it did the Republicans, and the party switch in the 60s didn't happen when you actually look at the platform of both parties. The Democrats just stopped being openly racist, but the GOP didn't get this suddent anti-black sentiment that people seem to pretend exists within the party.

C. Because as I said, while they won't vote for the party who countered civil rights, they tend to be more religious which means they will vote against the gays because the bible is shit.

So they'll vote consistently for the party that kept them down (and for whom it is ludicrously easy to argue are still doing so) unless the issue is a religious matter?

I know America's education system is considered bad, and that in poor areas it's even worst, but that just sounds... otherworldly.

Because the parties switched, sure the majority of dems might have voted against it or might not have. You'll have to forgive me if I take most of what you say with a grain of salt. But it was a democratic president who pushed it through and did so better than anyone else could have. I know it wasn't a sudden switch, TX was solidly democratic till the 90s. A republican couldn't get elected here since they were the party of Lincoln. But once the democrats started meaning more leftwing and the republicans started meaning more right TX switched hard. It doesn't matter which party mostly voted against it, it matters who the president was who pushed it through.

Worgen:
It doesn't matter which party mostly voted against it, it matters who the president was who pushed it through.

Doesn't this sort of invalidate the idea that the party can take credit for it though, since if it's just the man in question then it should be the man who gets all the credit? I don't see the GOP being given credit for the economic boom under Eisenhower, who was conservative and created the backbone of the nation's modern economic infrastructure. Or the Democrats taking the blame for FDR's stunting the economic recovery of the country so bad it took being dragged into WW2 to actually shock the economy back into health (which is honestly the real reason I think he had such a hard on for trying to get the country into the war in the first place). So why should the Democrats take credit for something both parties supported but that their own opposed by nearly twice the margin as the GOP? It's not as if it was because of how things where left/right, the Dems where firmly left wing at the time, the GOP firmly right wing. The only real change of the time was on economic involvement by the government, with the Dems moving from less to more and the GOP from more to less.

Zontar:

So they'll vote consistently for the party that kept them down (and for whom it is ludicrously easy to argue are still doing so) unless the issue is a religious matter?

I know America's education system is considered bad, and that in poor areas it's even worst, but that just sounds... otherworldly.

Which party is constantly trying to pass religious "freedom" legislation that's basically glorified "fuck LGBT people" legislation. Which party is in control in the states where it's still legal to be fired for being LGBT? Which party elected a cunt president that killed protections for LGBT people? Which party passed a bill through a state house to allow discrimination in adoption TODAY!?

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/10/texas-freedom-to-serve-childen-act-lgbt-adoption/

The GOP. (Yeah, funny thing about Trump, for all that pro-LGBT malarkey, he still killed legislation that was designed to protect LGBT people and passed a "religious freedom" order that many LGBT activists are concerned will be abuse to trod on their rights, and is doing fucking nothing about all the state level anti-LGBT crap going on. The best that can be said about him is that he kept some of Obama's old policy's, and it's kind of telling when the most pro-LGBT thing he did was not actively fucking them over.)

By contrast, which party legalized gay marriage, which party holds power in the only state in which a person being transgender is not an acceptable defense in murdering them, which party had the first sitting president to be pro-LGBT, which party is in power in states where it's illegal to fire someone for being LGBT? The party you say is somehow keeping them down.

So please tell me what my stupid American educated brain is missing here. Because it looks like one party is trying to uphold LGBT rights and the other is trying to tear it down. Or please tell me how the Democrat Party keeps them down when my blue state of MA got around to legalizing gay marriage over a decade before anyone else in this fucking country. Please tell me that before you insult my education.

irishda:
That ignores the crux of my point though. YOU are the state. The state is not an autonomous body that can dictate your position. The state's position is decided by the officials of the state. To force officials to hold a position on behalf of the state is to attempt to move the state into an autonomous body of its own opinions.

No. A collection of individuals are the state, and anybody speaking on behalf of the state should reflect the agreed consensus of that collection of individuals. If their own personal opinion differs irreconcilably, they aren't capable of doing the job. Your state senate or whatever is the place for debating policy, not in official statements.

madwarper:

Adam Jensen:
Let's not pretend that both sides are equal.

I don't pretend that sides are equal.

I, also, don't pretend that "sides" are monolithic blocks that are hive mind. The person that does that, of course, would be you. And, that sentiment is simply detached from reality. So, you can either come to the realization that not every person on the "right" is an authoritarian, or you can continue to be wrong.

It's your choice, but I would recommend the former over the latter.

I remember writing in my initial post that how authoritarian people are depends on how far to the right they are. So obviously not everyone is going to be an authoritarian. There are centrists that lean slightly more to the right.

Adam Jensen:

I remember writing in my initial post that how authoritarian people are depends on how far to the right they are. So obviously not everyone is going to be an authoritarian. There are centrists that lean slightly more to the right.

There are actually some pretty hardcore anti-authoritarians on the right, I believe they're called libertarians..?
Correct me on that if I apply that label incorrectly.

Speaking as someone from overseas, I find both political parties in the US pretty right-leaning in their policies, even the supposed "far left" (save for a particular set of policies) in which they differ from the republican party, they are actually very alike save for a small handful of policies in which they differ.
I've always felt this really constrains the political choices the average American actually has, what if someone wanted to support more socialist christian policies, or libertarian ones, or advocate for policies neither party really supports but still is a demand for?

There seems to be a trend that when one party picks up a certain cause, the other seemingly feels obligated to oppose it, this does not feel like a collaborative system of representation but rather one of forced competition and animosity, a powder keg by design.

Adam Jensen:
I remember writing in my initial post that how authoritarian people are depends on how far to the right they are.

Well, that would have been equally as wrong as what you DID write. Unless you think the authoritarian "left" either a) can't be authoritarian, or b) just doesn't know that they are actually the "right".

Because, left/right and liberal/authoritarian are two different spectrums.

Namehere:

Then why would you suggest I misinterpreted you? You say yourself there were no qualifiers. Extreme shifts in society/politics are bad. I left no qualifier because I didn't deem one necessary. Your statement however requires qualification. It is the difference between stating that 'water is wet' - a universal reality - and 'sand is brown.' Well some sand is brown, some is red. The sand on a beach might be brown, might also be red though. Water? Universally wet. Taking a middle ground approach is situational, and to not be in the middle is not to necessarily be in the extreme. So it demands qualification. Extreme changes are bad.

My argument was to provide instances in which drastic changes are beneficial or desirable. I was not making any universal statements at all, so no, it's not like saying "sand is red".

So you have demonstrations of times when extremist politics put in place in a system hasn't lead to catastrophe, right? I mean if your going to take issue with my broad generalisation surely you can point to real world times when it wasn't a problem. I debunked your 500 years ago idea, I showed how it hasn't worked recently. I demonstrated that the sort of 'soft influence' you were talking about, including the use of armed force, wasn't the same as dissolving a country's government form and replacing it with another, over the course of months. Deposing one dictator for another isn't an extreme policy shift. The governmental systems remain the same and the society is more or less undisturbed because life just... goes on...

It is not "debunking" my example from 500 years ago to merely state that the same isn't true recently, because your original statement did not limit itself to now, or to here. Your original statement blanketed "all society". That was the whole crux of my problem with it.

Similarly, you haven't debunked the example of military force used to prop up Batista or other violent conservative forces, either. All you're saying is that it's not "the same", whatever that means. It's still bad.

I also think this is an effort to defect from the point I've been trying to make. Liberal societies such as the western world require freedom of speech/expression. To remove them would be a mistake. With that said, it seems to me that neither the left or right wing seek to destroy their nations, they merely see different futures for them. And that neither of them, outside of extremists, sees a future without freedom of speech or expression, suggesting to me that this is fundamental beyond party lines and ought not to be played with for petty party politics point scoring.

There's no effort to deflect from this point about freedom of expression in Western society, because (as I already said) I never disputed that, it's bloody obvious.

My argument was about how your statement does not refer solely to extremism in comfortable Western modern society; it generalises all societies.

Silvanus:

Namehere:

Then why would you suggest I misinterpreted you? You say yourself there were no qualifiers. Extreme shifts in society/politics are bad. I left no qualifier because I didn't deem one necessary. Your statement however requires qualification. It is the difference between stating that 'water is wet' - a universal reality - and 'sand is brown.' Well some sand is brown, some is red. The sand on a beach might be brown, might also be red though. Water? Universally wet. Taking a middle ground approach is situational, and to not be in the middle is not to necessarily be in the extreme. So it demands qualification. Extreme changes are bad.

My argument was to provide instances in which drastic changes are beneficial or desirable. I was not making any universal statements at all, so no, it's not like saying "sand is red".

So you have demonstrations of times when extremist politics put in place in a system hasn't lead to catastrophe, right? I mean if your going to take issue with my broad generalisation surely you can point to real world times when it wasn't a problem. I debunked your 500 years ago idea, I showed how it hasn't worked recently. I demonstrated that the sort of 'soft influence' you were talking about, including the use of armed force, wasn't the same as dissolving a country's government form and replacing it with another, over the course of months. Deposing one dictator for another isn't an extreme policy shift. The governmental systems remain the same and the society is more or less undisturbed because life just... goes on...

It is not "debunking" my example from 500 years ago to merely state that the same isn't true recently, because your original statement did not limit itself to now, or to here. Your original statement blanketed "all society". That was the whole crux of my problem with it.

Similarly, you haven't debunked the example of military force used to prop up Batista or other violent conservative forces, either. All you're saying is that it's not "the same", whatever that means. It's still bad.

I also think this is an effort to defect from the point I've been trying to make. Liberal societies such as the western world require freedom of speech/expression. To remove them would be a mistake. With that said, it seems to me that neither the left or right wing seek to destroy their nations, they merely see different futures for them. And that neither of them, outside of extremists, sees a future without freedom of speech or expression, suggesting to me that this is fundamental beyond party lines and ought not to be played with for petty party politics point scoring.

There's no effort to deflect from this point about freedom of expression in Western society, because (as I already said) I never disputed that, it's bloody obvious.

My argument was about how your statement does not refer solely to extremism in comfortable Western modern society; it generalises all societies.

Your statement was about occupying the middle of the political spectrum, it had no qualifiers and it deemed it somehow wrong. My statement was that extreme shifts politically are bad - universally. Because they are. If they aren't, feel free to demonstrate where extreme shifts proved beneficial and successful. Otherwise I don't know why your still replying. And your right, it does generalise all societies. If you can't find an example of a time when extreme shifts worked, then there's a good chance there isn't one.

Giving the vote to people five hundred years ago and dismantling their government/social structures - which is what it would call for - would lead to chaos. The world we know would not exist and liberalism and likely democracy would both have died a crib death. Giving the vote to North Koreans would result in an election of their current dictator or absolute madness. After all, whose running? These things demand deep consideration that they seldom receive. Who ran for office in Afghanistan's elections? Warlords. The ECC stopped the smallest but didn't have the power to stop the biggest of them. That's just 1 problem in 1 circumstance.

Radical social and political change - extreme change - is bad. Social and political systems evolve naturally and when you interfere with that you create problems, big ones. So yes, I made a generalisation that extreme change is bad for those systems and I stand by it. Any time you'd like to point out a great success from extreme changes, feel free. I haven't see any yet. I've seen extremes lead to slide back and baby steps forward. But I haven't seen them lead to stability and prosperity.

As for the limited interventions you've brought up... Cancer is bad. AIDS is bad. Are they the same? Well problem solved. One of these things is not like the other. Extreme change doesn't mean simply a transfer of power from one dictator to another or one elected figure to another. That's just change. Extreme change is a transfer of power from one elected official to a dictator or the complete removal of the political structure. Is it interference? Sure. But it isn't 'extreme' interference. I don't advocate isolation or a lack of trade and communication. I don't suggest tearing up all the treaties. I suggest that intervention and occupation designed to enforce extreme changes on a population and their political system is bad. I also suggest that doing that to yourself is little better.

So can you provide an example of extreme change - that includes timeline here, shifting from a monarchy to a democracy in 500 years isn't extreme like doing it in sixteen months - that wasn't bad for the peoples and countries involved? I can't. So I made a broad generalisation and I stand by it. Extreme change makes everything fall apart.

Catnip1024:

irishda:
The policy of the state is defined by the state officials, state officials who can have differing opinions on that policy. It is not set in stone. To force officials to characterize policy a specific way that matches only one of those groups' policy statements is quite literally the definition of quashing free speech

If you are making a statement on behalf of the state, that should align with the state outlook on matters. If you are acting on your own behalf, you should be free to say what you like. Which is why I qualified my remark. The text sounded as though it only applied when making official statements, rather than in debates etc.

But if you're an individual who characterizes the state then where's the separation between statements on behalf of the state and your own statements? I'll tell you right now you're just as likely to get fired from government for saying something in private as you are in official documents. Why is it acceptable that legal charges can be brought against them now too?

irishda:
But if you're an individual who characterizes the state then where's the separation between statements on behalf of the state and your own statements? I'll tell you right now you're just as likely to get fired from government for saying something in private as you are in official documents. Why is it acceptable that legal charges can be brought against them now too?

Who says it is now acceptable that legal charges can be brought for private statements?

Genuinely curious, it wasn't clearly indicated in the OP. Although, if you were going around privately slagging off the state, it would be no different than if the company you worked for found out you were badmouthing them outside of work. Which could foreseeably result in disciplinary action.

No individual characterises the state. One occasionally speaks for the state - a good rule of thumb would be, if you are discussing policy with the public / media in a work environment, toe the damn line. As a senator, you are free to debate state policy as you see fit, but my understanding there would be that you do not speak for the state at the senate, you speak for the area which elected you. Which removes the responsibility to respect the state position. If you are not a democratically elected lawmaker, then your job when speaking for the state is to recognise the policy agreed by the lawmakers. As fucked up as it may be.

Catnip1024:

irishda:
But if you're an individual who characterizes the state then where's the separation between statements on behalf of the state and your own statements? I'll tell you right now you're just as likely to get fired from government for saying something in private as you are in official documents. Why is it acceptable that legal charges can be brought against them now too?

Who says it is now acceptable that legal charges can be brought for private statements?

Genuinely curious, it wasn't clearly indicated in the OP. Although, if you were going around privately slagging off the state, it would be no different than if the company you worked for found out you were badmouthing them outside of work. Which could foreseeably result in disciplinary action.

You don't need a law to fire someone, so I'm forced to assume this bill carries legal ramifications in terms of defying it, even if it's just a fine. That's where I draw the line. It's different if Oklahoma's executive branch said "If you don't call it this in public, then you're fired." But this isn't what it is. This is a requirement on all elected officials. And if all elected officials are forced to adhere to the characterization made by a specific party, under penalty of law, that's the very definition of censorship.

It's as you say:

As a senator, you are free to debate state policy as you see fit, but my understanding there would be that you do not speak for the state at the senate, you speak for the area which elected you. Which removes the responsibility to respect the state position.

My only correction is, you NEVER speak for the state as a legislative official. That's as wrong as when that Republican representative said David Nunes works for the president AND his constituents. As an elected official, you ALWAYS speak for the area which elected you.

irishda:
You don't need a law to fire someone, so I'm forced to assume this bill carries legal ramifications in terms of defying it, even if it's just a fine. That's where I draw the line. It's different if Oklahoma's executive branch said "If you don't call it this in public, then you're fired." But this isn't what it is. This is a requirement on all elected officials. And if all elected officials are forced to adhere to the characterization made by a specific party, under penalty of law, that's the very definition of censorship.

No, there needs to be a reason to fire someone. It can't be done on a whim without risk of lawsuit. And given that it is a state doing this, it is better that they pass policies through law than contracts which may be private. At least people become aware of the situation.

It's a law clarifying the terminology the state chooses to use. It may be complete bullshit as terminology, but it's a legitimate way of setting out ones position.

My only correction is, you NEVER speak for the state as a legislative official. That's as wrong as when that Republican representative said David Nunes works for the president AND his constituents. As an elected official, you ALWAYS speak for the area which elected you.

I think the issue we're having here is that you are only thinking about elected officials. Governments have vast swathes of unelected officials that do a lot of the busywork. And even of the elected officials, if you are then selected by the state to speak for it, as a chair or spokesperson or whatever, then you take on the responsibility of acknowledging the state views when you are actively fulfilling those roles.

Basement Cat:
If this continues to de-thread into a GG thing I will kill it.

Back on topic.

Sole warning.

I've never discussed GG, so I would never do that, but...can I draw a parallel between apologists of the Right and apologists for Nintendo, in that the two are both fanatical in their approach?

 Pages PREV 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