New Paradigm: The Center vs The Extremists

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

erttheking:
We've been over this before. If you want to bar people for having bad views about the LGBT community, you'd have to ban half the United States. Doubly so with the south.

Western values, what the hell does that even mean? Tell me what you think it means and I'll show you a bunch of westerners who don't care about them.

Well, we already ban cults like the Westboro Baptist, so, I mean... There's already a precedent there. Also, you're mostly talking about old people, who're dying. Younger generators hold these views less and less.

This is the opposite with Islamic cultures. Their younger generations are getting more extreme, which, I've provided stats to you in the past before.

erttheking:
I should've been more clear. Immigrants who are allowed to intergratd properly commit less crime. Hard to do when the right hates your existence. Note the second class citizen part t of my argument.

Ha, seriously? Your argument is that we should just wait it out and hope they get bored of rape and maybe then they'll decide they've integrated enough?

Don't be ridiculous. That's just as dumb as saying the Left's whining is the reason Trump won. Completely unfounded, and if you have any proof to demonstrate that being given free housing, free health care, free money and so on is such a dire situation that they're forced to rape people to survive, I'll happily concede, but, I somewhat doubt you will.

erttheking:
And you're focusing on back alley stranger rape, which is not even ten percent of rapes.

"These crimes don't count, they're the wrong kind of violence horrific crimes!"

... Really?

erttheking:
And can I get stats from countries that don't have world record low crime rates? What about your country, plenty of violient crime there.

... This is literally a cross section of 6 European countries. There's about 1/4 the countries in Western Europe. Given we're talking about immigration into Europe, referring to the crime stats in about 25% of the countries in Western Europe is pretty relevant. Stop trying to move the goal posts.

Frission:
Reminds me how Le Pen and her followers was all about how bigoted the Muslims were, until they started talking about stopping gay marriage, tearing separation of church and state and other such hypocritical measures.

I say this because I rarely if ever trust the motivations of the far-right. They can talk about how reasonable they are, which only lasts until they go rabid at a debate or do something like praise Pinochet for "removing" socialists. For example, you mentioned afterwards about immigrant crime statistics which is worrying, but with the FN that eventually led to calls of throwing "all of them out", including those who bad been in France for decades.

Sort of hard to take any argument with sincerity, and as the far-right is so fond of accusing the left of "calling everyone nazis", the same could be said that they certainly haven't helped their image by having some vocal nazis in their midst.

I think there's definitely a disconnect between the old right and the new right. I can only really speak from my experience, but, it seems more lately that younger people on the right want things like free speech, LGBT rights and so on.

The inverse seems to be the case of the old left and the new left.

Ugh, too much circular bullshit as always. There's nothing being 'sacrificed' for crying out loud, can we just be done with this strawman once and for all, please? It's a serious waste of time, based purely on emotional reaction. Not a false equivalency when generalisations are being made, don't deflect so obviously palllleaaaase. I would quote like a gentleman, but it would be more trouble than it's worth right now and it seems it doesn't matter anyway (also am using a tiny device so probay just laziness in that regard). When all one's efforts are put into making other people look bad, one has to wonder exactly how quality of life is supposed to improve for anybody. Don't drag others down through bitterness and distrust.

The Lunatic:
Snip

I said half of the United States. Last time I checked, there was a bit of a gap between the WBC and over a hundred-million people. You don't get points for banning the most blatantly obvious examples.

Careful, anymore straw in that argument and it'll overflow. No, it's a well documented fact that if you treat a minority like shit, things go sour very fast. Look at my people, the Irish. They came to the United States because they were starving and were generally treated like shit. Where did that go? The creation of Irish gangs that dominated the New York underworld for a century. The Dead Rabbits, the Five Point Gang, the Hudson Dusters, and the Gopher Gang. The Dead Rabbits were also at the forefront of the New York Draft Riot, during which over a hundred people died. The most deadly riot in US history, nearly twice as deadly as the LA Riots. The Irish gangs didn't exactly commit arson or pimping for survival, but it kind of paints a pattern. Treating minorities as blights on society never ends well, yet for some reason we keep doing it.

More like I'm getting on you for simplifying rape to the stereotypical back alley rape, the kind commonly associated with minorities, when the majority of rape is done by someone you know and usually not in a back alley. The right overlooks this commonly and acts like the back alley rape is the epidemic. Can't help but notice that whenever the right is talking about rape, they seem overly concerned with the kind done by Arabs in a non-subtle manner, not really caring about the other forms of it.

Half of which you only gave partial stats for, the other half going by not very useful metrics such as "foreign surname," which hardly takes into account...anything really. Doesn't help that the point I made about immigrants committing less crimes? That only applies to first generation immigrants. As generations go on, things balance out, so second and third generation immigrants have their crime statistics go up. Combine this with the point I made about treating immigrants like shit, and the goalposts haven't moved at all. Your ball just didn't go very far.

The center, represented by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, is indeed opposing the pro-corporate, pro-war extremists, represented by Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Cruz, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mike Pence, and Donald Trump.

And if that's not your "center" and "extremists" then I'd like some of whatever you're smoking.

Seanchaidh:

And if that's not your "center" and "extremists" then I'd like some of whatever you're smoking.

I don't know where people consider Sanders and Warren to be the "centre", but here in Canada, and in Western Europe, they're at most in the area where the left wing and the far left become a bit of a blur.

Saelune:

inu-kun:

Saelune:
People think "extremism" is automatically bad. Ending slavery was rather extreme though.

Is it though? If I remember my history right, abolishing slavery was already done in Europe (that had strong cultural ties to the USA) and Mexico as well as some American states. The idea was mainstream in itself. I personally see Extremism as campaigning to violently change a system, either advocating literal violence or hurting the common rights of people in it without giving the change a check if it actually work.

So for example, wanting to end slavery in Saudi Arabia through dialogue is not extremism. Advocating to war with Saudi Arabia to end slavery there can be called extreme.

Not like slavery was ended with a few kind words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The problem in that case is that we already know how it ended and nobody need to pay its price again which makes calling it righteous easy (imagine if the Union lost) and even then I doubt the people against slavery preached the idea of a war that will end up killing 100000 people and destroying parts of the USA without making themselves massive hypocrites. So Saudi Arabia is a valid comparison because we don't know what the consequences of such actions are before end.

inu-kun:

Saelune:

inu-kun:

Is it though? If I remember my history right, abolishing slavery was already done in Europe (that had strong cultural ties to the USA) and Mexico as well as some American states. The idea was mainstream in itself. I personally see Extremism as campaigning to violently change a system, either advocating literal violence or hurting the common rights of people in it without giving the change a check if it actually work.

So for example, wanting to end slavery in Saudi Arabia through dialogue is not extremism. Advocating to war with Saudi Arabia to end slavery there can be called extreme.

Not like slavery was ended with a few kind words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The problem in that case is that we already know how it ended and nobody need to pay its price again which makes calling it righteous easy (imagine if the Union lost) and even then I doubt the people against slavery preached the idea of a war that will end up killing 100000 people and destroying parts of the USA without making themselves massive hypocrites. So Saudi Arabia is a valid comparison because we don't know what the consequences of such actions are before end.

Ending slavery through war was not ideal, but then, slavery is not ideal. And the point was that it was a rather "extreme" event with a positive that outweighs the negative.

I dont want any more wars. But I also dont want a government that is unabashedly evil.

Zontar:

Seanchaidh:

And if that's not your "center" and "extremists" then I'd like some of whatever you're smoking.

I don't know where people consider Sanders and Warren to be the "centre", but here in Canada, and in Western Europe, they're at most in the area where the left wing and the far left become a bit of a blur.

And you base this on..?

Seanchaidh:

Zontar:

Seanchaidh:

And if that's not your "center" and "extremists" then I'd like some of whatever you're smoking.

I don't know where people consider Sanders and Warren to be the "centre", but here in Canada, and in Western Europe, they're at most in the area where the left wing and the far left become a bit of a blur.

And you base this on..?

The positions taken by our politicians, and the people who vote for them. Up here for example Sanders would have run with the NDP, and they aren't exactly the moderate left leaning party up here. Only time they ever reached opposition status was when the popularity of the Liberals and the Bloc collapsed at the same time, and that was still a majority mandate for the Tories.

There's a reason why they've been the official opposition the same number of times as a separatist party which only a quarter of the country can even vote for.

Zontar:

Seanchaidh:

Zontar:

I don't know where people consider Sanders and Warren to be the "centre", but here in Canada, and in Western Europe, they're at most in the area where the left wing and the far left become a bit of a blur.

And you base this on..?

The positions taken by our politicians,

Such as..?

Saelune:

inu-kun:

Saelune:
Not like slavery was ended with a few kind words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The problem in that case is that we already know how it ended and nobody need to pay its price again which makes calling it righteous easy (imagine if the Union lost) and even then I doubt the people against slavery preached the idea of a war that will end up killing 100000 people and destroying parts of the USA without making themselves massive hypocrites. So Saudi Arabia is a valid comparison because we don't know what the consequences of such actions are before end.

Ending slavery through war was not ideal, but then, slavery is not ideal. And the point was that it was a rather "extreme" event with a positive that outweighs the negative.

I dont want any more wars. But I also dont want a government that is unabashedly evil.

The event itself ended resolving in an extreme way (due to events which reach further than slavery) but the opinion against slavery was not extreme in itself and should not use a defence to justify extremism.

inu-kun:

Saelune:

inu-kun:

The problem in that case is that we already know how it ended and nobody need to pay its price again which makes calling it righteous easy (imagine if the Union lost) and even then I doubt the people against slavery preached the idea of a war that will end up killing 100000 people and destroying parts of the USA without making themselves massive hypocrites. So Saudi Arabia is a valid comparison because we don't know what the consequences of such actions are before end.

Ending slavery through war was not ideal, but then, slavery is not ideal. And the point was that it was a rather "extreme" event with a positive that outweighs the negative.

I dont want any more wars. But I also dont want a government that is unabashedly evil.

The event itself ended resolving in an extreme way (due to events which reach further than slavery) but the opinion against slavery was not extreme in itself and should not use a defence to justify extremism.

I get the feeling southerners at the time would disagree with you on that. Slavery kind of kept their cotton picking economy going. Also, the build up to the Civil War showed just how little the south was willing to let go of slavery and wanted it to spread. Bleeding Kansas comes to mind.

erttheking:

inu-kun:

Saelune:
Ending slavery through war was not ideal, but then, slavery is not ideal. And the point was that it was a rather "extreme" event with a positive that outweighs the negative.

I dont want any more wars. But I also dont want a government that is unabashedly evil.

The event itself ended resolving in an extreme way (due to events which reach further than slavery) but the opinion against slavery was not extreme in itself and should not use a defence to justify extremism.

I get the feeling southerners at the time would disagree with you on that. Slavery kind of kept their cotton picking economy going. Also, the build up to the Civil War showed just how little the south was willing to let go of slavery and wanted it to spread. Bleeding Kansas comes to mind.

So by that logic is advocating to put more machines in factories instead of people "extreme"? Or maybe creating energy source subsitutes to oil is "extreme"? After all those industries keeps some areas going.

I also realized that the whole "positive that outweighs the negative" might not be completely true, the Civil War had 100x the amount of deaths in Iraw and Afganistan, there might have been a peaceful solution if given time that would have ended slavery without killing hundred of thousands of people.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

inu-kun:

The event itself ended resolving in an extreme way (due to events which reach further than slavery) but the opinion against slavery was not extreme in itself and should not use a defence to justify extremism.

I get the feeling southerners at the time would disagree with you on that. Slavery kind of kept their cotton picking economy going. Also, the build up to the Civil War showed just how little the south was willing to let go of slavery and wanted it to spread. Bleeding Kansas comes to mind.

So by that logic is advocating to put more machines in factories instead of people "extreme"? Or maybe creating energy source subsitutes to oil is "extreme"? After all those industries keeps some areas going.

I also realized that the whole "positive that outweighs the negative" might not be completely true, the Civil War had 100x the amount of deaths in Iraw and Afganistan, there might have been a peaceful solution if given time that would have ended slavery without killing hundred of thousands of people.

To a lot of people it is, yes. Have you seen how pissy people get when talking about not relying on oil?

So the black slaves should've done what exactly? Sucked it up? And Lincoln made no moves to makes slavery illegal. The South threw a tantrum and broke away because they were pissy that he won the election and that they thought he might. Also, 100x deaths? Only if you're only counting Americans. In terms of overall deaths, not so much.

The Lunatic:

Ha, seriously? Your argument is that we should just wait it out and hope they get bored of rape and maybe then they'll decide they've integrated enough?

That's nobody's argument. Go back and read it again.

The Lunatic:
think there's definitely a disconnect between the old right and the new right. I can only really speak from my experience, but, it seems more lately that younger people on the right want things like free speech, LGBT rights and so on.

That value placed on LGBT rights can't go particularly far, then, given the willingness to vote for candidates who act against those rights (Trump, Le Pen, Theresa May).

The Lunatic:

The inverse seems to be the case of the old left and the new left.

Well, only if we're talking about a tremendously narrow and contentious definition of "free speech".

The Lunatic:

I think there's definitely a disconnect between the old right and the new right. I can only really speak from my experience, but, it seems more lately that younger people on the right want things like free speech, LGBT rights and so on.

The inverse seems to be the case of the old left and the new left.

Funny, my experience it's the young who have fascist tendencies and who fit the school shooter profile. The Old Right with all their problems are far more reasonable.

inu-kun:
So by that logic is advocating to put more machines in factories instead of people "extreme"? Or maybe creating energy source subsitutes to oil is "extreme"? After all those industries keeps some areas going.

To some, yes, to others, no. What's the point of this argument?

the Civil War had 100x the amount of deaths in Iraw and Afganistan

Citation needed.

there might have been a peaceful solution if given time that would have ended slavery without killing hundred of thousands of people.

So, what, were we supposed to go "Don't worry guys, I'm sure we'll reach a peaceful solution soon!"? Did you honestly forget about that period after slavery ended where we segregated our entire population down to blacks and whites? Even after they were no longer slaves, we treated them like shit. Racial segregation only ended once the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was put in place, by contrast, slavery ended in 1865. Almost an entire century of treating them as if they weren't equals. Sure, there would have been some states that would abolish slavery, and we'd chip through it state by state, year by year, until eventually it was abolished country-wide. That sounds a bit familiar to how same-sex marriage was legalized, state by state, until the Supreme Court made it country-wide. But that would have taken ages because of how strongly The South wanted to keep slavery, I mean, the South started a freaking war over wanting to keep slaves. Anyone remember the KKK? Started by former Confederate Army officers after slavery was abolished.

How long of a wait would be acceptable before deciding a peaceful solution isn't possible? 10 years? 30? 50? 100? We will never know just how long slavery would continue had we not abolished it, but I want you to tell me what you think could possibly be an "acceptable" amount of time to wait.

I also realized that the whole "positive that outweighs the negative" might not be completely true,

In a number of situations the "end justifies the means" mentality does not apply, however, in this situation, it did. The ideal scenario in an ideal world would have been to simply abolish slavery without any bloodshed. But it was not an ideal scenario, and this is not an ideal world. If we constantly hinged on the "might have"s because there might be a better solution, no matter how slim the chance, we would get nowhere, sometimes decisive action is required to make progress. We cannot know the future, so we must decide. Wait or act? Sometimes the wait pays off, sometimes acting sooner rather than later is the answer. Sometimes waiting makes the problem worse or creates new problems, sometimes acting now makes the problem worse or creates new problems.

Dr. Thrax:

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war (yeah I counted only americans since that is the "paid price" for the USA, if we count both sides it "only" becomes 3x).

And no, having a used solution does not mean the ideal (or close to it) ideal would not have worked. Unless you have a time machine to prove it was the only (and best) solution.

erttheking:

To a lot of people it is, yes. Have you seen how pissy people get when talking about not relying on oil?

So the black slaves should've done what exactly? Sucked it up? And Lincoln made no moves to makes slavery illegal. The South threw a tantrum and broke away because they were pissy that he won the election and that they thought he might. Also, 100x deaths? Only if you're only counting Americans. In terms of overall deaths, not so much.

Getting pissy does not mean extremism, since that makes everything extreme and thus the definiton absolutely meaningless.

So if you think it was justified would you approve of 750,000 deaths to avert a smiliarly fucked-up regime (for example, N. Korea)? Or the pro-war attitude only applies to conflicts you already know the results of and have no need to pay the in lives and economy?

inu-kun:

Dr. Thrax:

Citation needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war (yeah I counted only americans since that is the "paid price" for the USA, if we count both sides it "only" becomes 3x).

And no, having a used solution does not mean the ideal (or close to it) ideal would not have worked. Unless you have a time machine to prove it was the only (and best) solution.

erttheking:

To a lot of people it is, yes. Have you seen how pissy people get when talking about not relying on oil?

So the black slaves should've done what exactly? Sucked it up? And Lincoln made no moves to makes slavery illegal. The South threw a tantrum and broke away because they were pissy that he won the election and that they thought he might. Also, 100x deaths? Only if you're only counting Americans. In terms of overall deaths, not so much.

Getting pissy does not mean extremism, since that makes everything extreme and thus the definiton absolutely meaningless.

So if you think it was justified would you approve of 750,000 deaths to avert a smiliarly fucked-up regime (for example, N. Korea)? Or the pro-war attitude only applies to conflicts you already know the results of and have no need to pay the in lives and economy?

Considering that coal was one of the main backers of Trump from rural America, I feel safe in calling the idea of getting rid of it extreme for them.

The war was going through happen one way or another, so going back and forth about it is pointless. So I say if a war with n Korea is inevitable, go for it. Not that the two situations are remotely comparable, as the Civil War was an internal affair that would've destroyed America if left unchecked. do know that you also are also using hindsight to justify your stance right? The North thought that the war was going to be easy and quick. Don't call the kettle black if you're a pot.

inu-kun:
And no, having a used solution does not mean the ideal (or close to it) ideal would not have worked. Unless you have a time machine to prove it was the only (and best) solution.

And so you're basing that portion of your argument on a very distant hypothetical that there could maybe possibly have been something resembling a chance of a peaceful resolution to slavery. Which, at this point, is an exercise in futility. I mean, following that train of thought, do we never get into conflict because there might be - given enough time - a chance for a peaceful resolution? Even if it takes multiple generations - potentially a hundred years or more?

And you didn't answer my question. How long of a wait would be considered "acceptable" before the possibility of a peaceful resolution is considered not possible?

erttheking:

Considering that coal was one of the main backers of Trump from rural America, I feel safe in calling the idea of getting rid of it extreme for them.

The war was going through happen one way or another, so going back and forth about it is pointless. So I say if a war with n Korea is inevitable, go for it. Not that the two situations are remotely comparable, as the Civil War was an internal affair that would've destroyed America if left unchecked. do know that you also are also using hindsight to justify your stance right? The North thought that the war was going to be easy and quick. Don't call the kettle black if you're a pot.

...I don't see the logic anywhere here, Trump promised it and....?

I didn't say I've supported or against the Civil war so I don't get the accusations of hindsight. Also would have it really "destroyed America"?

Dr. Thrax:

And so you're basing that portion of your argument on a very distant hypothetical that there could maybe possibly have been something resembling a chance of a peaceful resolution to slavery. Which, at this point, is an exercise in futility. I mean, following that train of thought, do we never get into conflict because there might be - given enough time - a chance for a peaceful resolution? Even if it takes multiple generations - potentially a hundred years or more?

And you didn't answer my question. How long of a wait would be considered "acceptable" before the possibility of a peaceful resolution is considered not possible?

Once again, I'm not saying that I'm against the civil war, I just say that there could have been alternatives, and justifying a war of that size as the best answer to slavery seems extreme, especially looking at the political side I'm talking to.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

Considering that coal was one of the main backers of Trump from rural America, I feel safe in calling the idea of getting rid of it extreme for them.

The war was going through happen one way or another, so going back and forth about it is pointless. So I say if a war with n Korea is inevitable, go for it. Not that the two situations are remotely comparable, as the Civil War was an internal affair that would've destroyed America if left unchecked. do know that you also are also using hindsight to justify your stance right? The North thought that the war was going to be easy and quick. Don't call the kettle black if you're a pot.

...I don't see the logic anywhere here, Trump promised it and....?

I didn't say I've supported or against the Civil war so I don't get the accusations of hindsight. Also would have it really "destroyed America"?

Dr. Thrax:

And so you're basing that portion of your argument on a very distant hypothetical that there could maybe possibly have been something resembling a chance of a peaceful resolution to slavery. Which, at this point, is an exercise in futility. I mean, following that train of thought, do we never get into conflict because there might be - given enough time - a chance for a peaceful resolution? Even if it takes multiple generations - potentially a hundred years or more?

And you didn't answer my question. How long of a wait would be considered "acceptable" before the possibility of a peaceful resolution is considered not possible?

Once again, I'm not saying that I'm against the civil war, I just say that there could have been alternatives, and justifying a war of that size as the best answer to slavery seems extreme, especially looking at the political side I'm talking to.

It was enough to help get a total madman into office, one who's following is starting to border on Cult of Personality levels of fanaticism.

You only know the war would've been so long and bloody with the benefit of hindsight. No one had any idea that so many people would die. Therefore you're making your judgements that maybe there could've been a better way with the benefit of hindsight. And yeah, it would've. America was still seen as a curiosity by the world at the time, the world didn't have faith in democracy making a strong nation. The Civil War proved we were willing by to do what it took to keep the country together. It's around the time people stopped saying "these United States" and started saying "THE United States."

inu-kun:
Once again, I'm not saying that I'm against the civil war, I just say that there could have been alternatives, and justifying a war of that size as the best answer to slavery seems extreme, especially looking at the political side I'm talking to.

And once again, I'm asking you: How long is considered "acceptable" of a wait to solve a situation in which people had complete control over the life and death of another human being? You said "given time", how much time is "enough"? As ert said, the only reason you can say any of this is because the Civil War already happened and we know what came of it. It's too fuckin' late for coulda, woulda, shoulda.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

Considering that coal was one of the main backers of Trump from rural America, I feel safe in calling the idea of getting rid of it extreme for them.

The war was going through happen one way or another, so going back and forth about it is pointless. So I say if a war with n Korea is inevitable, go for it. Not that the two situations are remotely comparable, as the Civil War was an internal affair that would've destroyed America if left unchecked. do know that you also are also using hindsight to justify your stance right? The North thought that the war was going to be easy and quick. Don't call the kettle black if you're a pot.

...I don't see the logic anywhere here, Trump promised it and....?

I didn't say I've supported or against the Civil war so I don't get the accusations of hindsight. Also would have it really "destroyed America"?

Dr. Thrax:

And so you're basing that portion of your argument on a very distant hypothetical that there could maybe possibly have been something resembling a chance of a peaceful resolution to slavery. Which, at this point, is an exercise in futility. I mean, following that train of thought, do we never get into conflict because there might be - given enough time - a chance for a peaceful resolution? Even if it takes multiple generations - potentially a hundred years or more?

And you didn't answer my question. How long of a wait would be considered "acceptable" before the possibility of a peaceful resolution is considered not possible?

Once again, I'm not saying that I'm against the civil war, I just say that there could have been alternatives, and justifying a war of that size as the best answer to slavery seems extreme, especially looking at the political side I'm talking to.

Ok, lets go to a time when governments, in an attempt to avoid war, decided to "wait and see" for a more peaceful solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

(Spoiler, Nazis are involved)

MrCalavera:
I think it's more like apathy vs. extremism. Since narrative has been hijacked by the extremists, "normal" people that don't necessiraly want to stomp every political opponent in the dirt don't feel like they belong in political discourse.

Yeah and then get insulted and labelled a nazi if they dare to ask for a little civility or open-mindedness. I'm fully prepared for a snarky defense of close minded hate filled rhetoric in response to what I said since it has happened so often when I make calls for civility.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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