The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'

[ReijiTabibito]

Basically this. I'd like to think I'm a bit more moderate, but I definitely have a more conservative/Republican lean. I frankly don't care at all about someone's beliefs; you believe what you want, and I can't change your mind or stop you in doing what you want. That's the beauty of the United States and other Western democratic societies; you can believe what you want, and even if I hate it and I think it's idiotic, I can't do anything about that besides try and talk to you about it. Even then, I won't have a problem with it unless it pushes you to commit violence or you think it gives you the right to thumb your nose at people.

But as we all know by now; a peaceful political discussion almost always turns into a blatant argument, and those do nothing but make people angry and potentially turn violent. No one is blameless in the current political scene. Both sides have had their own faults and have done their own crazy and stupid things. We've regressed back to post-World War One Europe, where the right and the left fight each other in the streets in order to suppress the other, and moderates are either forced to choose a side or be caught in the crossfire. I don't want to be surprised, but we've been polarizing for so long that we honestly should've seen this coming.

The Anti-fascists and anarchists represent the worst of this demonization and identity politics crap. Whether you agree with them or not, what they've been doing the wake of Trump's inauguration is unacceptable. I want to remain as neutral as I can, but I firmly believe they and other extreme leftists were the one's that brought violence into the current political discussion, and I think we may not reverse that. So many of them are either upper-middle class college students and young adults who have been indoctrinated by these ideologies, be it by their professors or whatever media they've been consuming. Many of them sincerely believe they're trying to prevent the second coming of Adolf Hitler (despite how eccentric and wild he is, he is anything but Hitler), and they're willing to smack down anyone they think is even remotely in their way. Most aptly shown when a Berkeley professor dressed in Antifa red/black smashes a bikelock over a Trump supporter's head.

Normally, I would break this up, but there's a thread running through all of this that I want to touch on.  Maybe two. 

Most people are 'live and let live' sorts of individuals; if you aren't screwing with what I'm doing, I have no reason to screw with what you're doing.  The 'I have no quarrel with you' brand of mentality.  After all, only an asshole goes out of their way to screw someone who has done nothing wrong to them.

The problem the authoritarians have with this mentality is that it lets people actually do what they want to do.  People have probably heard one of the stories about restaurants/food establishments getting sued by gay couples who are getting married that refused to cater their wedding on the basis of their (mostly) religious beliefs.  Oh no, the extreme left says, this cannot stand.  You cannot pick and choose who your clients will be simply because they are not to your taste; you must accept them as a client.

The problem is that this specific issue is more or less tainted by a century of segregation in American history, where blacks and other minorities were turned away from white establishments simply because they were not white.  The piece of the puzzle most people are missing here is that segregation, while it enjoyed broad social support from Southern whites (since under segregation, even the poorest white man was treated better than the wealthiest black man), it was an actual government initiative, enforced by law throughout the South.  The comparison of RFRA laws to segregation is only half-fair; yes, it does allow people to discriminate based on religious belief; no, it doesn't make that discrimination mandatory (the general argument I've heard employed against RFRA laws is that if you allow people to be assholes, then they will, though I usually rebut that with doesn't that say more about people than it does about the law?).

Now, when it comes to this particular argument - or really any argument about business - I tend to be of the opinion that if your beliefs are actually important enough to you that you're willing to turn away customers of a given group because of those beliefs, then you had better be ready to accept the possibility that you may go out of business because of those beliefs.  (Paul makes this argument WRT government in the Bible; he states that while we are to follow our beliefs, we must be ready to accept the consequences that will come of following them.)

To an authoritarian, there is no room for debate on the matter.  You will do what you're told, regardless of what personal reservations you have on the matter.  Now, there's authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum, though the source of their similar attitudes comes from different places.  Leftist authoritarians tend to track more from the socialist/communist end of things, people who actually thought that the PRC back in the day and the USSR were just 'improperly instituted' versions of their economic model of choice; rightist authoritarians tend to come from a hyper-religious background, typically Christian in outlook.

Authoritarianism has one major positive aspect: it unifies people and brings them together, even if that unity is under threat and coercion.  After the massive social fragmentation of the last half-century (done largely by libertarian leftists, they of the old hippie school of 'do your own thing'), some social unity might actually be sorely appreciated.

The issue is that people have a tendency to buck authority and not do as they're told; just ask the parent of any teenager; hence the need for authoritarians to compel people to behave, either with condemnation of hellfire and brimstone on the right, or being called a Nazi on the left.

This has the effect of getting people off their reservations and actually into the fight; people who wouldn't have otherwise bothered because now there is a massive movement that wants to tell you what to say and how to live.

There's no actual debate and discussion anymore. We've devolved to name calling (Nazi, SJW, racist, "libtard", etc.) and outright violence. Not only that; fear, intimidation, and suppressing people's right to speak their mind seem to be the way to quash the competition nowadays.

That's because when you have an actual discussion, you actually have to engage in debate and have an idea that doesn't have a million holes in it, something you can actually defend.  You have to be intelligent and address criticism of your proposal.

If, on the other hand, your idea isn't solid, or you just don't want to have to go to the effort of having to learn how to debate, you can simply take the ad hominem path and exploit the ignorance of a great many people by saying that 'my opponent is a bad person, therefore you shouldn't listen to anything he has to say.'

This has the effect of allowing bad ideas to remain viable, even though they are bad ideas, because you are no longer criticizing the idea but the speaker.

I hate to use this as an example, but socialism - and I'm not talking about it in the way most people do, I'm talking about actual institution of a socialist economic system like what was in the USSR and the PRC for a very long time - is an example of this sort of phenomenon.  (The word gets really mangled and tossed around by the debate over economic systems.  I will say that no Western country has an actual socialist system.  The Scandinavian model, which is usually held up as the example of what to be aiming for, is not socialist, it is capitalist with a butt-ton of government oversight and regulation.  Even Bernie Sanders would not advocate for a true socialist system.)

People arguing for implementation of a socialist economy - and I've run into them, mostly on college campuses - have this tendency in a debate whenever a valid criticism of the system emerges.  They will not address the problem and how it can be handled, a lot of them default to 'the evils of capitalism' when they attempt to rebut.  Now, the kids are probably just regurgitating things they heard in class from their professors, but the adults?  It's hard to say for me.

Combine that basic idea - someone is evil and therefore you can't listen to anything they say - with the SJW perspective that the past was a horrible place of racism and sexism and bigotry (which it was, but we have to understand that these were people progressing through history, you can't judge the people of 100 years ago by the standards of today), it basically gives them carte blanche to throw out whatever ideas they don't like.

[VonHellsing]

The problem the authoritarians have with this mentality is that it lets people actually do what they want to do.  People have probably heard one of the stories about restaurants/food establishments getting sued by gay couples who are getting married that refused to cater their wedding on the basis of their (mostly) religious beliefs.  Oh no, the extreme left says, this cannot stand.  You cannot pick and choose who your clients will be simply because they are not to your taste; you must accept them as a client.

The problem is that this specific issue is more or less tainted by a century of segregation in American history, where blacks and other minorities were turned away from white establishments simply because they were not white.  The piece of the puzzle most people are missing here is that segregation, while it enjoyed broad social support from Southern whites (since under segregation, even the poorest white man was treated better than the wealthiest black man), it was an actual government initiative, enforced by law throughout the South.  The comparison of RFRA laws to segregation is only half-fair; yes, it does allow people to discriminate based on religious belief; no, it doesn't make that discrimination mandatory (the general argument I've heard employed against RFRA laws is that if you allow people to be assholes, then they will, though I usually rebut that with doesn't that say more about people than it does about the law?).

Now, when it comes to this particular argument - or really any argument about business - I tend to be of the opinion that if your beliefs are actually important enough to you that you're willing to turn away customers of a given group because of those beliefs, then you had better be ready to accept the possibility that you may go out of business because of those beliefs.  (Paul makes this argument WRT government in the Bible; he states that while we are to follow our beliefs, we must be ready to accept the consequences that will come of following them.)

To an authoritarian, there is no room for debate on the matter.  You will do what you're told, regardless of what personal reservations you have on the matter.  Now, there's authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum, though the source of their similar attitudes comes from different places.  Leftist authoritarians tend to track more from the socialist/communist end of things, people who actually thought that the PRC back in the day and the USSR were just 'improperly instituted' versions of their economic model of choice; rightist authoritarians tend to come from a hyper-religious background, typically Christian in outlook.

Authoritarianism has one major positive aspect: it unifies people and brings them together, even if that unity is under threat and coercion.  After the massive social fragmentation of the last half-century (done largely by libertarian leftists, they of the old hippie school of 'do your own thing'), some social unity might actually be sorely appreciated.

The issue is that people have a tendency to buck authority and not do as they're told; just ask the parent of any teenager; hence the need for authoritarians to compel people to behave, either with condemnation of hellfire and brimstone on the right, or being called a Nazi on the left.

This has the effect of getting people off their reservations and actually into the fight; people who wouldn't have otherwise bothered because now there is a massive movement that wants to tell you what to say and how to live.

As an Indiana native and as someone who saw ground-zero of the RFRA laws, I want to say that it was horribly misunderstood for multiple reasons. When it was first unveiled, both Mike Pence and his supporters did a horrible job of explaining it, and of course the only part of it that people took was "denying gay people service". As you mentioned, it depends entirely on the person, so the law itself isn't inherently bad (yes, Mike Pence's history on homosexuality is questionable at best, but that's not the point). What happened was people only took that snippet and refused to look deeper into it, and gay couples who were denied service because of it were almost pressured to sue and take action against the business in question instead of going to another. But I'm not sure how much I can accurately say on this; I'm not gay, and I'll probably never know how it feels to denied something based solely who I'm interested in romantically. What worried me the most was the potential impact it would have on Indianapolis; so many businesses and conventions threatening to leave in "solidarity" of this RFRA law. They later amended it and were more clear about it later on, but the damage was already done.

What most progressives and extreme leftists believe is that they're moral champions meant to influence and lead society, and for the last 8 or so years they were doing just that. Trump and others weren't wrong in saying that the Left has considerable sway in the media and other higher echelons of society. To the more active-minded progressives, those who don't agree with their nose-thumbing and "moral righteousness" are deemed bigots/racists/homophobes, and they persistently crusade against them. YouTubers like Pewdiepie and Jontron who recently expressed anti-immigration beliefs or general support for Trump were not only attacked on social media, but news outlets like the Wall Street Journal directly went to their sponsors in order to demonetize them. Authoritarianism can take many routes. Though violence is one of the more straightforward and common ones, attacking their income and way of life is another and (I personally think) more sinister one. In the case of Pewdiepie, he was targeted because of his ridiculously large fame in order to make an example of him. Authoritarians exist on both sides, without question, but extreme leftists are easily the most widespread and vocal, and arguably the ones most willing to commit violence in order to achieve their goals.

Whether the unifying factor of authoritarianism is a good thing or not I can't say myself. As you said, it forces people into action and brings that particular group together, but demonization of the other side will only accelerate and violence ensues when these two groups clash. It was probably a given anyway, but allowing these groups and coalitions on both sides to organize and wage potential violence makes me question if the benefits were truly worth it. On my college campus and online, I've seen so many communists and extreme right-wingers openly say they wish to overthrow the federal government, and violently at that.

This has the effect of allowing bad ideas to remain viable, even though they are bad ideas, because you are no longer criticizing the idea but the speaker.

I hate to use this as an example, but socialism - and I'm not talking about it in the way most people do, I'm talking about actual institution of a socialist economic system like what was in the USSR and the PRC for a very long time - is an example of this sort of phenomenon.  (The word gets really mangled and tossed around by the debate over economic systems.  I will say that no Western country has an actual socialist system.  The Scandinavian model, which is usually held up as the example of what to be aiming for, is not socialist, it is capitalist with a butt-ton of government oversight and regulation.  Even Bernie Sanders would not advocate for a true socialist system.)

People arguing for implementation of a socialist economy - and I've run into them, mostly on college campuses - have this tendency in a debate whenever a valid criticism of the system emerges.  They will not address the problem and how it can be handled, a lot of them default to 'the evils of capitalism' when they attempt to rebut.  Now, the kids are probably just regurgitating things they heard in class from their professors, but the adults?  It's hard to say for me.

Combine that basic idea - someone is evil and therefore you can't listen to anything they say - with the SJW perspective that the past was a horrible place of racism and sexism and bigotry (which it was, but we have to understand that these were people progressing through history, you can't judge the people of 100 years ago by the standards of today), it basically gives them carte blanche to throw out whatever ideas they don't like.

With so many extreme leftists constantly regurgitating insults and claims of bigotry, the terms they so love to use have utterly lost their value to many people. While thankfully this means many innocent people will go unaffected by these accusations, this allows those who actually harbor "alt-right" ideas to fly under the radar. Hell, even the term "alt-right" didn't really exist or become well-known until Hillary Clinton brought it out into the light during her presidential campaign; while tying to denounce and destroy it, she and her supporters inadvertently gave the movement that didn't have a name until then steam and credence, causing it's number of followers to swell overnight be it by giving their ideologies a name or piquing a person's interest into it.

After just finishing my Freshman year of college, I've encountered far more advocates of socialism and even communism than I'd ever like to see. And as a History major, they and others like them have caused many headaches for me. When going into a discussion with them, I've had some cite specifically the atrocities in the Belgian Congo under Leopold II and other peoples being subjugated by European colonists, not understanding that colonialism and a free-market/capitalist economy are two wildly different things. They always try to take a moral standpoint, saying things like universal healthcare would save many lives and free education helping the job market, but they often ignore or outright refuse to say how we'll fund these programs or be realistic about the limitations of these systems.

What irritates me most is, however, is the often complete lack of retrospective analysis and context. I firmly believe Herodotus when he says, "Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances." Very often throughout history, people are simply a product of the environment around them, contributing to their ideas of the world around them and other people. Using Rome as an example; the German and Celtic tribes north of the Alps and in Britannia commonly sacked Roman settlements, harassed/killed Roman Legionnaires, and refused to be subjugated. Not only that, they followed "primitive" pagan gods, rather than accepting the Christ as their savior and the Son of God. So of course they hated the Germanic peoples and saw them savages and barbarians who only did evil. And in a situation eerily similar to our times; when the Huns rampaged across Eastern and Central Europe, the Goths fled to the Roman empire as refugees seeking safety. Now with these brutes living as neighbors to native Romans and taking their jobs, hatred and distrust reached its peak. Discrimination, poor economic conditions, and Goth conscripts being used as meatshields against Rome's enemies made the Goths hate Rome in return, being the last nail in the coffin of the Roman Empire.

[ReijiTabibito]

As an Indiana native and as someone who saw ground-zero of the RFRA laws, I want to say that it was horribly misunderstood for multiple reasons. When it was first unveiled, both Mike Pence and his supporters did a horrible job of explaining it, and of course the only part of it that people took was "denying gay people service". As you mentioned, it depends entirely on the person, so the law itself isn't inherently bad (yes, Mike Pence's history on homosexuality is questionable at best, but that's not the point). What happened was people only took that snippet and refused to look deeper into it, and gay couples who were denied service because of it were almost pressured to sue and take action against the business in question instead of going to another. But I'm not sure how much I can accurately say on this; I'm not gay, and I'll probably never know how it feels to denied something based solely who I'm interested in romantically. What worried me the most was the potential impact it would have on Indianapolis; so many businesses and conventions threatening to leave in "solidarity" of this RFRA law. They later amended it and were more clear about it later on, but the damage was already done.

Emphasis mine.

The media is largely responsible for the first part of that statement - people taking one specific portion of the bill and then going nowhere past it.  This is because the media enjoys an incredible amount of control over what people think and say in discourse.  Remember Howard Dean?  He was a new ideas sort of Democrat, Bernie Sanders before people knew who Sanders actually was.  He ran in 2004 for the Presidential nomination, and was leading in the polls prior to the opening of the Iowa caucus.  Dean ran on a bunch of ideas - his opposition to the Iraq War was the one that brought him front and center, but he also advocated for health care, fiscal responsibility and fighting lobbyists by the use of grassroots fundraising.

The problem was that Dean was not liked by the Presidential gatekeepers, precisely for those reasons.  So they used the infamous 'Dean Scream' speech and had the media play a clip lasting not even more than five seconds over and over and over again until it was all people could remember about Howard Dean.  Or, even if you want to go forward to the most recent election cycle, do look at Bernie Sanders.  Despite the fact that this was a guy who gave Hillary a run for his money in what was supposed to be a no-contest crowning for their golden girl, you won't find a lot of mainstream media reporting from that time on him.  What do we hear?  Hillary, Hillary, Hillary; Trump, Trump, Trump.  If the media had backed Bernie, given him and his platform support, there was the possibility of him winning the nomination.  But of course, the media had already spent eight years hyping Hillary as the next Democratic candidate, and they were not about to let some upstart from Vermont ruin their plans.

The second part is the bit about being pressured to sue.  I mentioned previously the gay marriage and suing various places for their refusal to do business.  One of the places that it happened was Colorado, where an investigation into the matter revealed that before finding the place the gay couple was suing, there were about half a dozen other places they had checked out.  In short, it was simply an attempt to make an example of people who would not comply.  This is because the moralists on the left have taken it upon themselves to scour American society of every unacceptable action.  It's totally unnecessary (this is not segregation-era South, places can be found that will serve them) and only serves the purposes of the authoritarians.

What most progressives and extreme leftists believe is that they're moral champions meant to influence and lead society, and for the last 8 or so years they were doing just that. Trump and others weren't wrong in saying that the Left has considerable sway in the media and other higher echelons of society. To the more active-minded progressives, those who don't agree with their nose-thumbing and "moral righteousness" are deemed bigots/racists/homophobes, and they persistently crusade against them. YouTubers like Pewdiepie and Jontron who recently expressed anti-immigration beliefs or general support for Trump were not only attacked on social media, but news outlets like the Wall Street Journal directly went to their sponsors in order to demonetize them. Authoritarianism can take many routes. Though violence is one of the more straightforward and common ones, attacking their income and way of life is another and (I personally think) more sinister one. In the case of Pewdiepie, he was targeted because of his ridiculously large fame in order to make an example of him. Authoritarians exist on both sides, without question, but extreme leftists are easily the most widespread and vocal, and arguably the ones most willing to commit violence in order to achieve their goals.

Which is interesting, considering they have spent the last half-century trying to tear down moral champions and thumbing their noses at them.  Principally those of the Christian camp.  Keep your morality/religion off my body; Christians just want women in the kitchen and gays in the closet; etc.  The problem there is that the society-wide breakdown of a universal moral standard in favor of moral relativity has done a lot to fragment the social fabric of the country, which has resulted in the social chaos that you see today.  Now, you might find some out there that say that this was the plan all along - divide and then unite under a different banner - though that's not a belief of mine.

With so many extreme leftists constantly regurgitating insults and claims of bigotry, the terms they so love to use have utterly lost their value to many people. While thankfully this means many innocent people will go unaffected by these accusations, this allows those who actually harbor "alt-right" ideas to fly under the radar. Hell, even the term "alt-right" didn't really exist or become well-known until Hillary Clinton brought it out into the light during her presidential campaign; while tying to denounce and destroy it, she and her supporters inadvertently gave the movement that didn't have a name until then steam and credence, causing it's number of followers to swell overnight be it by giving their ideologies a name or piquing a person's interest into it.

Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word.  Also, words do have a tendency to change their meanings over time.  If I were to tell you I saw a bimbo walking down the street, that would conjure a given image.  Woman, blonde hair, fake body, etc etc.  If I used it a hundred years ago, it would have meant something entirely different, as the word originally referred to a brutish, unintelligent man, what we today would call a thug.  The real problem is that people distort the given meaning of something for self-serving ends, and the distortion is the only thing that people hear about.

After just finishing my Freshman year of college, I've encountered far more advocates of socialism and even communism than I'd ever like to see. And as a History major, they and others like them have caused many headaches for me. When going into a discussion with them, I've had some cite specifically the atrocities in the Belgian Congo under Leopold II and other peoples being subjugated by European colonists, not understanding that colonialism and a free-market/capitalist economy are two wildly different things. They always try to take a moral standpoint, saying things like universal healthcare would save many lives and free education helping the job market, but they often ignore or outright refuse to say how we'll fund these programs or be realistic about the limitations of these systems. 

Colonialism was an exploitative system that favored the conquerors over the conquered.  Also, welcome to human history.  Colonialism was also a system that helped spur development in countries that were otherwise sorely lacking in it, and helped build infrastructure and a country.  You can't really talk about India of modernity without talking about the role that the British Empire had in it, same goes for Australia.  Anti-colonialists love to talk about the evils of colonialism with regards to social conditions and treatment of native populations, but will ignore whatever material benefits that it gave to the people of that country.  Hearing Americans screaming about how colonialism is evil makes me roll my eyes because America was started as a British colony!  No colonialism, no America.  Colonialism is a system like any other - it had good things and bad things about it, and we need to recognize the positive benefits that it offered to the colonized countries, not just harp on the evils that happened under it.

To flip over to the other matter...yes, that is a tendency we see of the collegiate leftist, isn't it?  Talk about how good universal healthcare and education is from a moral standpoint while glossing over potential impracticalities of it.  For the students, that's because they're ignorant and just regurgitating the lines they were fed in their liberal arts classes; the professors and adults have no excuse.

I won't speak on healthcare, but I will speak on education.  First thing that people need to realize is that not everyone is suited for college.  That's just a fact.  I have a friend who is head IT professional at a law firm, never went to college a day in his life - he graduated from high school, joined the Air Force, got a bunch of training there, and then kept on working on computers after he left.  People who have college degrees work for him, not the other way around.  I had a high school classmate that graduated and then went to trade school; my classmates and I all thought he was crazy because he was incredibly smart.  Cue the 2008 recession - most of us were either flailing to keep what jobs we had or scrambling to get one - he had graduated, gotten his license, and been working for 3 years by that point, he was in no danger of becoming unemployed. 

The second thing is that people need to stop being elitist about the work that they do.  I recently was hired to work at a chemical HazMat company after over a year of job searching.  Now, prior to being hired there, I worked at a call center doing collections work for telecom companies.  I hated it, hated the fact that I had to work with idiots, hated the hours, but I went and I did it because it was good money and steady work.  The phrase "I'd never do X, I'd rather die" is almost signatory of #FirstWorldProblems.  One of the arguments I employ with regards to illegal immigrants 'stealing' people's jobs is that while it may happen, if you had actual Americans that were willing to do those jobs, then employment of illegals wouldn't be what it is.  It won't make the issue disappear overnight, but the fact that immigrants - illegal or otherwise - are willing to come here and do jobs that regular born Americans aren't willing to do helps them tremendously.  This ties in with education when you read reports that there are plenty of jobs out there, people just need to be able to access the training for them.  Which IS true to an extent, but as the saying goes, horse, water, drink.

What irritates me most is, however, is the often complete lack of retrospective analysis and context.

Why would you want to do that?  That means you have to actually open a book and admit to the possibility that the past was not purely an era of racism, sexism, and bigotry.

Also, for the reference:

History, repetition, Santayana, etc.

[Vekseid]

Von Hellsing, your posts are frequently a gish gush of falsehoods, but this sort of denialist bullshit is outright offensive:

Authoritarians exist on both sides, without question, but extreme leftists are easily the most widespread and vocal, and arguably the ones most willing to commit violence in order to achieve their goals.

Right-wing authoritarians are easily the most widespread, the most vocal, and the most violent.

Without question.

These are facts. Not opinions.

I wrote the sticky at the top of the forum because of your denialism.

Because you do not seem to recognize, or care about, these murders.

Because you do not seem to recognize, or care about, these calls to genocide.

It's like you refuse to admit that this has been occurring.

Hell, you think Hillary 'invented' the alt-right. Despite Breitbart and Spencer using the terms for years beforehand. It is America's brand of totalitarian fascism. Seeking to create a white ethnostate or, in Steve Bannon's own words, speaking on air to Donald Trump, 'having a civic society'.

Breitbart has openly suggested that scientists should be murdered for discussing peer review. Using Nazi language, no less.

Name one publication, on the left, Von, that has Breitbart's reach, that has called for a similar degree of mass murder of any right-wing group.

Name one member, of the Obama or Clinton administrations, as influential as Bannon was, that has called for the mass expulsion of an entire race.

You can't, and even if you could, I could dredge up many more.



In any case, as I mentioned in the sticky I made last night, your denial of right-wing violence and calls to genocide are insulting to the victims of these crimes. Your denial of the death threats that scientists and crime victims receive because of right-wingers and Alex Jones fans is insulting to the victims of these crimes.

People are getting murdered, Von.

I do not give the slightest fuck if you think being openly called out for your patent bullshit is censorship.

This is people's lives.

People's safety.

Human beings.

Whether you believe they deserve to live or not.

Whether you believe they deserve safety or not.

[VonHellsing]

There's a lot to take in. I sincerely hope my statements don't seem disrespectful and are coherent. I'm trying to be as respectful and neutral as I can, but if I'm being perfectly honest you're making that very difficult by making a personal attack on my character. I usually try to avoid whining and bitching about things like this, but this I have to make an exception for.

What I write is not denialism, it is just my opinion, and it is anything but perfect; it reflects my wordview and my background, and I do not claim to know better than the average person. I do not know you Vekseid, so I will not make any assumptions or accusations on your part. Thank you very much for pointing me towards your sticky, by the way. I usually don't pay much attention to them, and I had no idea about any of those cases nor the statistics you posted.

From my point of view, as a middle-class college student who dips in and out of politics, who didn't even vote in the last presidential election, it simply appeared that extreme leftists were the most prevalent and vocal. And how could I not? Ever since the Trump inauguration, they've been popping up every other week either rioting or disrupting events, most recently at Berkeley. I am not perfect; this is because of the media I consume, and I am guilty of listening to biased sources. I knew right-wing violence and intolerance, but not on the scale that you described in the sticky, and the few times I've heard of them were in counter-protests against Antifa and when one of them punched Richard Spencer.

I'm stupid, I will openly admit it. I'm an ignorant fucking idiot who has only fabricated preconceptions on how the world works, and I try to improve upon that as much as I can.

But to say I deny the atrocities of the right, to say I that I'm okay with these murders by the right? I don't know you, but as far as I know you don't know me. To assume any general person, - especially one you've never met nor talked to- be it online or in public, is okay with the terrorizing and murder of innocents of any background done by either left or right is idiotic. Just because I didn't mention them doesn't mean I deny their existence. Again, I don't know you, but I have to ask; what makes you think I'm okay with the murder of innocents in the LGBTQ community or anywhere for that matter?

They're human beings. They deserve to live. They deserve safety. They deserve to live their lives unmolested and happy, just like anyone. These events of right-wing violence and calls for murder happen more often and have been going on longer than left-wing violence, I see that now because of you. But for you to proclaim that I believe otherwise is an incredible insult and crosses a line I can't even fathom. I have known several people victimized by this type of right-wing harassment and violence, both in high school and college, and for you to assume I callously deny them is inexcusable.

I do not give the slightest fuck if you think being openly called out for your patent bullshit is censorship.

No, I do not think this is censorship, and frankly if it was you're doing a terrible job at it.

In fact, despite my general abhorrence to politics in general, I see the Politics part of E to be a great boon. Here your ideas can (respectfully) be broken down, analyzed, and reconstructed based on what you've learned and how your worldview has changed. Again, I had no idea about those cases and statistics in your sticky until today, so in actuality I'm coming out of this better off than before. Maybe what I'm saying and what I believe is bullshit, I don't know.

Hell, you think Hillary 'invented' the alt-right. Despite Breitbart and Spencer using the terms for years beforehand. It is America's brand of totalitarian fascism. Seeking to create a white ethnostate or, in Steve Bannon's own words, speaking on air to Donald Trump, 'having a civic society'.

Breitbart has openly suggested that scientists should be murdered for discussing peer review. Using Nazi language, no less.

Name one publication, on the left, Von, that has Breitbart's reach, that has called for a similar degree of mass murder of any right-wing group.

Name one member, of the Obama or Clinton administrations, as influential as Bannon was, that has called for the mass expulsion of an entire race.

You can't, and even if you could, I could dredge up many more.

I hope I said this before, but in case I didn't I'll say it now; I could very well be wrong on a great many things. Maybe "alt-right" existed long before Hillary and I just didn't know it. Everyone perceives everything around them through a biased lens, and perhaps this was simply what happened in my case. Like many, the first time I ever heard the term alt-right was when Hillary Clinton brought it to the forefront in one of her speeches.

And you're right about a publication or member; I can't, and I don't doubt you could pull up more viable sources. But do you know why? It's because I don't a hoot in hell about any extremist media, be it The Young Turks or Infowars. Both sides are utter garbage, and anyone with a decent high school education would see it as such. I don't know the controversies surrounding and the maniacs behind their words, because what they say is trash that pollutes the mind. The same can be argued for politics in general, polarizing people and pitting them against one another, which is why I typically refused to get involved.

[Vekseid]

I apologize for coming across as so harsh, Von. I am sorry for insinuating that you held those views. I was certainly not feeling my calmest when I wrote that. It was out of turn on my part.

It has been a narrative that has been pushed recently. It is the sort of language upon which certain forms of denialism are built, and seeing the seeds of it build on my forums makes me ill.

And you're right about a publication or member; I can't, and I don't doubt you could pull up more viable sources. But do you know why? It's because I don't a hoot in hell about any extremist media, be it The Young Turks or Infowars. Both sides are utter garbage, and anyone with a decent high school education would see it as such. I don't know the controversies surrounding and the maniacs behind their words, because what they say is trash that pollutes the mind. The same can be argued for politics in general, polarizing people and pitting them against one another, which is why I typically refused to get involved.

Which one has had a sitting president come on air and validate them?

Which one has had a sitting president cite as a source?

Which one has, in a legal battle, used 'he is playing a character' as a legal defense?

Which one is responsible for death threats against the families of Sandy Hook victims?

Which one is responsible for death threats against people working at a pizza shop? Someone showing up with a gun and discharging it in the presence of children?

...to be clear, this is about the closest comparison you could make, given the name of Cenk's channel. At least both Alex and Cenk admitted they made mistakes. Wonder if Alex will apologize before or after someone shoots a Sandy Hook parent, though.



My point, I hope you understand, is that this false equivalency has reached an entirely new level in these past few years. There is no longer any justification for it.

By all means, if someone on the left is spewing bullshit, feel free to call them out. Happens all the damned time and I wish it would stop. But my reach is only as big as my forum, and I only dare use its full reach for things I can speak with firm authority on.

You may or may not have read some of my posts in this forum where I do not have the kindest words to say about parts of Islam's history, for example. No idea deserves immunity from criticism, no part of history should have its ugly facets buried.

Calls to violence, acts of violence, and other injustices should always be called out.

Trying to draw an inference from individual acts is never a good idea, though. If violence concerns you, you should evaluate why, first.



In any case, thank you for your response.

[Twisted Crow]

I have felt the need to revive this, if anything... to attempt a look at my subject(s) from multiple angles. Then, perhaps... examine myself... or perhaps the lens that I have been using to look through for these past few years.

You see, back in the day in my early adulthood, I felt like media propaganda was so simple. Obvious. Predictable. Perhaps it still is at times, after a fashion. But I can't seem to deny that the rules of the game have changed significantly with this President. Sure, you had some that would paint Bush like another Hitler... but it was easy for me to shake free and think for myself concerning Bush... without any red or blue tinted glasses. It felt easy for me to call out bias and cherry-picked nonsense.

Obama then came to be, but the game has not changed. More charismatic than Bush, but the rules of the game of politics and using media as a weapon of influence generally remained the same to me. I think I felt compelled to do this to preserve some sense of balance. Simply for the fact that, deep down? I have settled for nothing, as it proves more and more challenging to find one to best represent me... or at least, somewhat represent me. But this balance I sought is not just among the political parties, in fact I had always had my doubts as to whether such a thing was tenable. The balance I had desired has been among  people. It is people that essentially enable this binary game of win-or-lose, red and blue... and according to the media, seemingly; a Rebel Alliance against a Galactic Empire. It is... or has been... my belief that it is the niavete of people tipping the scales of my precious balance. It had been a thematic lesson I would try (as patiently as possible) to various peers of mine, that they are more threat to the balance in voting and doing nothing else than taking a stand against a government that is obviously using you.

"The Lion will appeal to your fears; telling you that you are losing your rights to political correctness. Telling you that the left will guilt you, use minorities as a weapon to attack and discredit your sense of humanity in spite of what some of Right-aligned allies have done. They cloak themselves as preservationists of rights, when they, in fact, threaten them; just as their enemy does.  And, in a sense... they would be correct about what they say about their enemy. However, they are still feeding on you and your fear to keep them in power.

The Snake will appeal to your fears; telling you that you are being oppressed by a Lion that hides behind promises of family values and honest tradition. The Snake will promise you fair treatment at the expense of more control for themselves. They do not appear to be liars, simply for the fact that they are far more clever than their enemy. In truth, they will devour you slowly so that you do not struggle much. This is a stark contrast to their enemy's ravenous desire to swallow you whole. They will slyly use any tragedy to bargain your support with promises of safety, and abandon you for other people that they can better use as weapons of influence against their enemy... and even you. Despite this, they are often correct about their enemy. However, they are still feeding on you and your fear to enable their power.

The key differences in your oppressors? One is bold and seemingly determined, the other is subtle and crafty. They are enemies, but they depend on our disharmony to survive."

My "solution", before? ... Fight them both. Argue and even sow at least a slightest sliver of disloyalty to their respective allegiances within their heart. However, I feel like that is a rather steep battlefield... with me at the bottom of the vast incline. And it has made me think, in spite of what I feel toward the two parties. I feel that I must submit, in a way, to at least ensure the balance doesn't die from an overly-dominant party in power.

... *Sigh*... such seems to be the case at the moment, for the Lion, in my illustration.

But I can't help shake this feeling of cowardice, as if I have given up my dream. This dream of a balance of free-thinking people, sharing and contesting ideas. But there can't be any of that if a Lion or Snake is allowed to simply devour them all. If I simply focus too much of sitting in the middle all of the time, I protect no one and nothing, it seems.

Err... does any of this make sense? I am sorry for rambling. But I am having doubts as to whether my desire for a medium is realistic under current circumstances.  :-\

[Vekseid]

I'm reminded of the Gnostic interpretation of the Serpent in the Bible.

The Demiurge tells you not to listen to the snake, because he fears that if you do listen, and do understand, that you will find freedom from the Demiurge's tyranny. For in truth you are greater than he. Should you escape, you might find out how many lifetimes of torture he has put you through. It's not that he wants to be evil.

He is just afraid.

[Twisted Crow]

That last post has a lot of truth in it for me. I originally meant to expand my thoughts on it, but I had lost track. Besides, it is not really relevant anymore, given what I am about to say.

I probably already stated this before, this was originally intended to be something like a blog. I asked for Staff for advice on this and was encouraged to put it here. The thought was it would maybe open some new things to consider in others, encourage people to be mindful of people with this given plight. Which is why I feel it appropriate to say this.

The weight that comes with attempting to straddle two stark political worlds and focus on issues themselves is a burden beyond anything I have been capable of. Both in life and even Elliquiy. I am pained from some among my right-wing family, just as I am similarly blindsided by left-wing friends that I have lost due to my heart and consideration. In a fairly recent conversation with one more among the right-wing that I have lost, my final words before we parted were:

"I seek not the facts, I seek truth in a given problem. Though one might see cowardice in indifference, another can't help but feel pained from another who only lashes tongue and severs his ears."

Which seemed lost on him, but I don't blame him for not understanding. One can't always expect a positive reaction when one chooses to speak in tongues, afterall. It is easy to mistake speech like this for posturing and/or hiding beneath obscure "word salad". And sometimes it can be.

However, I typically try to do things this way at times because I do not like directly telling people what to think. It is one of my peeves with some news programs and media that overstep their influence. Instead, I simply ask that they think for themselves, consider fairly, then form their own conclusions.

But the weight from this burden is too much for me, now. The anxiety and stress it has caused has likely helped age me considerably over the years. And I feel that enough is simply enough. Heh, if I am indeed a fool to these people, then perhaps this court jester should simply bow out. So...

I quit. Ask from me, and you shall receive. If these people have so desired my silence with prolonged barbs and abuse against me, then that is what they shall receive. Now, as far as Elliquiy goes, I resign from PROC indefinitely, starting now. What goes in real life must apply here in this particular case. I would much rather wear turn away from the problems (and not be made to feel that I contribute to them) and feel happy with my hobbies, here, than risk these poisons of the spirit any longer.

I don't see it as any loss for people in our commute, really. What is one man's feeling in the wake of overwhelming consensus? What is one vote? One choice? What is one when beset by many on both armies? No. I can contribute to this community elsewhere.

*waves*

I will see you around the site, but I withdraw from here.

I thank you all who have truly listened and contributed to this with their own thoughts. I believed it was productive and insightful for me, while it lasted. However, I would rather keep what friends remain here for me than risk putting those relationships and my self-worth in danger. :-)

Friend to All,

-Dallas

[Twisted Crow]

Decided to unlock this after some consideration. Just because I made this choice for myself doesn't mean I should deny people a voice on this topic if they might have something to say. Just doesn't feel right to lock it.

Toodles. ~Dall

[sdparquinn]

Normally, I would break this up, but there's a thread running through all of this that I want to touch on.  Maybe two. 

Most people are 'live and let live' sorts of individuals; if you aren't screwing with what I'm doing, I have no reason to screw with what you're doing.  The 'I have no quarrel with you' brand of mentality.  After all, only an asshole goes out of their way to screw someone who has done nothing wrong to them.

The problem the authoritarians have with this mentality is that it lets people actually do what they want to do.  People have probably heard one of the stories about restaurants/food establishments getting sued by gay couples who are getting married that refused to cater their wedding on the basis of their (mostly) religious beliefs.  Oh no, the extreme left says, this cannot stand.  You cannot pick and choose who your clients will be simply because they are not to your taste; you must accept them as a client.

The problem is that this specific issue is more or less tainted by a century of segregation in American history, where blacks and other minorities were turned away from white establishments simply because they were not white.  The piece of the puzzle most people are missing here is that segregation, while it enjoyed broad social support from Southern whites (since under segregation, even the poorest white man was treated better than the wealthiest black man), it was an actual government initiative, enforced by law throughout the South.  The comparison of RFRA laws to segregation is only half-fair; yes, it does allow people to discriminate based on religious belief; no, it doesn't make that discrimination mandatory (the general argument I've heard employed against RFRA laws is that if you allow people to be assholes, then they will, though I usually rebut that with doesn't that say more about people than it does about the law?).

Now, when it comes to this particular argument - or really any argument about business - I tend to be of the opinion that if your beliefs are actually important enough to you that you're willing to turn away customers of a given group because of those beliefs, then you had better be ready to accept the possibility that you may go out of business because of those beliefs.  (Paul makes this argument WRT government in the Bible; he states that while we are to follow our beliefs, we must be ready to accept the consequences that will come of following them.)

To an authoritarian, there is no room for debate on the matter.  You will do what you're told, regardless of what personal reservations you have on the matter.  Now, there's authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum, though the source of their similar attitudes comes from different places.  Leftist authoritarians tend to track more from the socialist/communist end of things, people who actually thought that the PRC back in the day and the USSR were just 'improperly instituted' versions of their economic model of choice; rightist authoritarians tend to come from a hyper-religious background, typically Christian in outlook.

Authoritarianism has one major positive aspect: it unifies people and brings them together, even if that unity is under threat and coercion.  After the massive social fragmentation of the last half-century (done largely by libertarian leftists, they of the old hippie school of 'do your own thing'), some social unity might actually be sorely appreciated.

The issue is that people have a tendency to buck authority and not do as they're told; just ask the parent of any teenager; hence the need for authoritarians to compel people to behave, either with condemnation of hellfire and brimstone on the right, or being called a Nazi on the left.

This has the effect of getting people off their reservations and actually into the fight; people who wouldn't have otherwise bothered because now there is a massive movement that wants to tell you what to say and how to live.

That's because when you have an actual discussion, you actually have to engage in debate and have an idea that doesn't have a million holes in it, something you can actually defend.  You have to be intelligent and address criticism of your proposal.

If, on the other hand, your idea isn't solid, or you just don't want to have to go to the effort of having to learn how to debate, you can simply take the ad hominem path and exploit the ignorance of a great many people by saying that 'my opponent is a bad person, therefore you shouldn't listen to anything he has to say.'

This has the effect of allowing bad ideas to remain viable, even though they are bad ideas, because you are no longer criticizing the idea but the speaker.

I hate to use this as an example, but socialism - and I'm not talking about it in the way most people do, I'm talking about actual institution of a socialist economic system like what was in the USSR and the PRC for a very long time - is an example of this sort of phenomenon.  (The word gets really mangled and tossed around by the debate over economic systems.  I will say that no Western country has an actual socialist system.  The Scandinavian model, which is usually held up as the example of what to be aiming for, is not socialist, it is capitalist with a butt-ton of government oversight and regulation.  Even Bernie Sanders would not advocate for a true socialist system.)

People arguing for implementation of a socialist economy - and I've run into them, mostly on college campuses - have this tendency in a debate whenever a valid criticism of the system emerges.  They will not address the problem and how it can be handled, a lot of them default to 'the evils of capitalism' when they attempt to rebut.  Now, the kids are probably just regurgitating things they heard in class from their professors, but the adults?  It's hard to say for me.

Combine that basic idea - someone is evil and therefore you can't listen to anything they say - with the SJW perspective that the past was a horrible place of racism and sexism and bigotry (which it was, but we have to understand that these were people progressing through history, you can't judge the people of 100 years ago by the standards of today), it basically gives them carte blanche to throw out whatever ideas they don't like.

Most people *think* they are live and let live. I guarantee you they are not, at least not in action: Every act of legislation is backed up by the implicit threat of force. Doesn't matter what the legislations is about, threats of violence are in the background. And I am willing to bet the vast majority of the populace supports many different kinds of legislation. Whether it be anti-pollution or anti-abortion or regulations on Wall Street. And yes, anti-discrimination laws being enforced on businesses. If "this person, in one way or another, supports anti-discrimination legislation" is your bar for "Authoritarian" then the vast vast majority of the populace is authoritarian.

Also... You believe that removing anti-discrimination laws is a good idea despite being "tainted" by American history yet don't extend the same charity to socialism?

Agree or disagree with socialism but have some consistency. 

[ReijiTabibito]

Most people *think* they are live and let live. I guarantee you they are not, at least not in action: Every act of legislation is backed up by the implicit threat of force. Doesn't matter what the legislations is about, threats of violence are in the background. And I am willing to bet the vast majority of the populace supports many different kinds of legislation. Whether it be anti-pollution or anti-abortion or regulations on Wall Street. And yes, anti-discrimination laws being enforced on businesses. If "this person, in one way or another, supports anti-discrimination legislation" is your bar for "Authoritarian" then the vast vast majority of the populace is authoritarian.

(Emphasis mine.)

Right.  Which is why we should have as little of it as possible.  Every piece of law enacted by a government can ever only be backed up with the threat of force if you do not comply.  Therefore, the only legislation that should exist is whatever legislation you are comfortable with enforcing at the point of a gun.  I am comfortable with the notion that someone who does not pay their taxes should be jailed and fined, because those taxes are needed to provide for national defense, emergency services, etc.  Just as example.

And no, my bar for authoritarianism is not merely 'supporting anti-discrimination legislation'.  It is much higher than that.

Also... You believe that removing anti-discrimination laws is a good idea despite being "tainted" by American history yet don't extend the same charity to socialism?

Agree or disagree with socialism but have some consistency.

That is a consistent position.  It's a consistent position in that I do not want government telling people how to run their lives or their businesses.  In a socialist system, everything is owned and operated by the government - therefore, the government tells business operators (because there is no such thing as private ownership) who they can and cannot serve.

Frankly, the notion that America is as or more racist today than it was when those anti-discrimination laws were written into place is absurd.  (The new laws are seeking to extend the protections of the laws developed because of segregation to other groups.)  In the segregated Jim Crow South, state governments had to have laws on the books preventing business owners from serving minorities.  Why?  Because capitalism doesn't care if you're black, white, blue, or orange - it just cares if your money is good.  Let's say we remove all the anti-discrimination laws, and two days later someone says "I'm no longer serving blacks at my business."  People would stop going.  No one would buy their stuff.  The business' name would be spread all over the news (whether local, state, or national).  In short, people would vote with their wallets and say "we are not supporting this," and the business would die.  I am not opposed to anti-discrimination legislation because I believe that people have the right to be assholes.  I am opposed to it because I believe enough people aren't, and therefore is unnecessary regulation.

[Skynet]

Anti-discrimination laws weren't just for private enterprise. They were for ensuring access to hospitals, public transit, education, bathrooms, and practically every aspect which help ensures a good quality of life.

While white shop owners could choose to sell to black as well as white customers in the Jim Crow South, said businesses ended up getting dynamited by the Klan in the middle of the night. Many Libertarians often reduce the Civil Rights Act to the realm of private enterprise when it was just so much more, or believe that overturning 99 of those other protections is worth it to ensure that federal law "doesn't step on small business."

In many towns the social rules of racism where such that virtually every private enterprise banned African-Americans. Think of how many goods you buy from grocery stores, tools from Home Depot, pretty much every convenience of life.

And racists are still alive and well in the USA. One out of six Americans gladly voted for a man who praised two of his fans beating up an Hispanic homeless man, retweeted a white nationalist who thinks that immigrants will outbreed the white race, and had Steve Bannon (a man who palls around with Neo-Nazis) to the White House Chief of Staff. I hate to say it, but there are wide swathes of American society where being Latino, Muslim, or African-American will cause you to be viewed as an existential threat. And without said protections, these swathes can and will take that inch into a mile and deny these people other rights.

[ReijiTabibito]

Anti-discrimination laws weren't just for private enterprise. They were for ensuring access to hospitals, public transit, education, bathrooms, and practically every aspect which help ensures a good quality of life.

Public transport and education are run by the government and therefore do not fall under private enterprise.  Any institution that accepts money from the federal government agrees to abide by the rules government has set for itself, which include anti-discrimination policies.

While white shop owners could choose to sell to black as well as white customers in the Jim Crow South, said businesses ended up getting dynamited by the Klan in the middle of the night. Many Libertarians often reduce the Civil Rights Act to the realm of private enterprise when it was just so much more, or believe that overturning 99 of those other protections is worth it to ensure that federal law "doesn't step on small business."

Right.  Half a century plus ago.  When the Klan was an actual force to be reckoned with and not the social pariahs screaming in a corner they are today.  If the Klan tried anything like what they did during the civil rights movement, law enforcement agencies would find them, throw them in jail, and dispose of the cell key all before any of them could utter the words 'My daddy.'  The times have changed.  People have changed.  We're talking up a storm about needing to update our educational system because it's out of date, hasn't the country changed enough from 1964 to merit a revisit of this, too?

And racists are still alive and well in the USA. One out of six Americans gladly voted for a man who praised two of his fans beating up an Hispanic homeless man, retweeted a white nationalist who thinks that immigrants will outbreed the white race, and had Steve Bannon (a man who palls around with Neo-Nazis) to the White House Chief of Staff. I hate to say it, but there are wide swathes of American society where being Latino, Muslim, or African-American will cause you to be viewed as an existential threat. And without said protections, these swathes can and will take that inch into a mile and deny these people other rights.

One out of six.  Which, if I've done my math right, means that five disagree with that notion.  Show me your evidence that 'wide swathes of American society' are okay with what the one-sixth are.

And the notion that voter ID laws are racist is predicated on the notion that minorities are somehow disproportionately unable to attain photo ID.  You know what you need a photo ID in order to do in this nation?

Buy alcohol and cigarettes. Open a bank account.  Rent a car or hotel room.  Apply for any type of government assistance - and that includes Social Security and Medicare.  Buy a cell phone.  Pick up a prescription.  Buy nail polish. None of these are as integral and as central to the operation of the American republic as voting.

The very idea that you can somehow operate in American society while being a citizen, without photo identification, is more rare than the voter fraud the Republican Party used as justification for voter identification legislation.

That said, I am open to the possibility that every post office in the US - which already is a part of the process for attaining a passport,  a piece of photo identification far more difficult to acquire than a photo ID card - offer the service that when an American citizen turns 18, they can walk into any post office in America and walk out that same day with a photo ID card, no charge.

[Skynet]

60 million voters is a huge number. Enough to be the population of most mid-sized countries and exceeding the population of a lot of US States. Trump supporters are a significant presence in mainstream politics.

Also the Voter ID laws are for a specific kind of ID which many people do not have, particularly senior citizens and college students. The courts in North Carolina, as referenced in the article I linked, found that the state Republicans intentionally researched how black people voted and what forms of ID they were unlikely to possess to specifically create laws to deny them this right. Thus the phrase "surgical precision" in the records of the appeals court.

[ReijiTabibito]

60 million voters is a huge number. Enough to be the population of most mid-sized countries and exceeding the population of a lot of US States. Trump supporters are a significant presence in mainstream politics.

Yes, it is.  It's also slightly higher than the population of Italy.  Contrast that with the remaining 300 million (keeping in mind your quoted one-sixth ratio), which is just under half the population of Europe without Italy. A number by itself sounds big, but we're not talking numbers, we're talking proportions.  And Trump supports have a significant presence in mainstream politics because various media forms exist that allow them to amplify their voice, whether that's posting on Facebook or being excoriated on a CNN interview.  You want to diminish the input these people have into the dialogue?  Stop talking to them.  It's what I've wanted CNN and MSNBC and various other contra-Trump outlets to do since he walked into the White House, because Trump is the sort of man who needs the attention of others to feel validated.  Even if that attention is 'see how dumb and stupid this guy is'.  No one is holding a gun to Anderson Cooper's head and forcing him to talk to anyone.  It's entirely voluntary, it can stop tomorrow.

Also the Voter ID laws are for a specific kind of ID which many people do not have, particularly senior citizens and college students. The courts in North Carolina, as referenced in the article I linked, found that the state Republicans intentionally researched how black people voted and what forms of ID they were unlikely to possess to specifically create laws to deny them this right. Thus the phrase "surgical precision" in the records of the appeals court.

And Georgia, just two states south, established the first legislation to provide for photo identification for the express purpose of voting.  I'm in agreement with you that saying 'you must have THIS specific form of photo ID to vote' is dumb.  The point of it is to establish that you are who you are, you don't need a specific form of ID to do that.  But that's not the conversation I've been hearing played out in the media; what I've been hearing is any attempt at a voter ID law is an attempt to suppress people Republicans don't like, and that's where you lose me.

[Skynet]

You don't have to take my word for it regarding the intentional targeting of race by Republicans, the Appeals Court records are publicly available here:

https://mediaweb.wsoctv.com/document_dev/2016/04/25/VIVA%20Decision_3993915_ver1.0.pdf

The fact-checking website Snopes also came to a similar conclusion, complete with sources:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/

[Skynet]

Actually I realized the Mediaweb was the District Court. This link is the Court of Appeals Source proper. Apologies for the mislabeling:

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16%204th%20Circuit%20NAACP%20v%20NC.pdf

[ReijiTabibito]

Thanks much.  Let me have some time to look over these and I'll give a more detailed response, but I'll say that with what I've already learned going in, yes, the NC Republicans did a bad thing, and I don't personally approve of their actions.  That doesn't inherently mean that I believe all voter ID laws are racist against minorities, just these ones.  Lack of willingness to try and engage the minority community in persuasion attempts does not allow them to behave badly.

[Skynet]

Pleasure to be of service!

[Twisted Crow]

So, I was watching some old TED Talks stuff, one that spoke to me recently (though this had been dated a couple of years) called 'Meeting the Enemy' by Cassie Jaye. Here, a former feminist talks about her coming to terms with Men's rights and male issues, her past tendencies to react on behalf of her "team" (feminism), etc. A remarkable feeling had washed over me when listening to her speak. She talked about her documentary on MRAs and her attempts to spin a narrative in her encounters with some of these men. It moved me in such away that I had been longing to experience for quite some time. I had found a 3rd voice in the room that I could value and respect. Therefore, I am suspending my own 'No PROC' vow temporarily to express what I feel might have changed within me. Or perhaps... an awakening of what always was truly 'Me', all along. This was essentially my "PROC Blog" after all, why should I have to deny myself a voice? What purpose does it serve to allow a cult of personality to persist my prison of silence? Given that I had asked about Niemöller sometime before, I find that cutting my own tongue does no service to anyone. So... "psuedo-intellectual" or "deserving fool" I may very well be. Hehehe. But this tongue shall wag nonetheless. All with ears can decide for themselves to listen or not. I do not care.

So, about how this experience may have 'enhanced' me a bit. :-)

It was refreshing to see was how even Cassie Jaye seemed to balance the accountability of her own thoughts and words with that of her past-present reasoning in this speech. This introspection was a treat, but for reasons I never imagined before. I felt genuine hope in the sight of a woman standing up to encourage an honest approach and discussion to gender politics (things that are, ultimately at their core -- human issues). To be honest, I was amazed that this sight filled me with such a hope that some people can actually contain a sense of objectivity to these issues. I am no longer alone in this feeling. What I especially liked most? No "gotcha" games, no in-your-face smarmy attitudes that I so often see in some media talking about these sorts of issues. They seemed to be spoken from one with a desire to encourage an alternative perception that may better combat our continued battles with ignorance and ego (even that of our own!).

The merit of these ideas had provided me with some considerable sense of relief. Not just because she played Devil's Advocate or "went to bat for us this one time". But this thought-provoking contention that if one genuinely aspires to Equality, then all parties must be able to dine at the table. If exclusion takes place at this table, then equality is not truly a desire -- is it? I am provided with more tools to use in my arsenal to combat these sort of issues, and it opened my eyes on so many in my life that simply refuse to shed the layers of their own petty egos. This experience has empowered me where I had only felt powerless before. Not just as a man, but as a human being in this crazy world of ours. It is easy for the weak-willed to dehumanize their opponents so that they might attack them for the sake of their "team". I had always found this to be cowardice at best and hostile social disjunction at it's worst.

In truth, I care little about what her actual motives and history could be. This isn't so much about taking a side, it is finding comfort in knowing that someone was brave enough to speak for me while I was too afraid to do so before (for fear of shame and said dehumanization). It is comfort in that one is capable of holding true to themselves and their own convictions while encouraging an honest attempt to listen and look at the each other's sides to the big fat coin. If you don't ever look when you actually flip it, does it matter whether or not you call heads or tails? The outcome will surely be however the coin lands, certainly. But you can simply tell yourself whether it is heads or tails without ever looking. One can examine the outcome only "count" when you find the outcome is to your liking. Or... one can choose not to think about the outcome at all. Without observing and honestly acknowledging the coin's fate, the merit of it's toss doesn't really matter at all. For the perception's sake, it does not matter what the truth actually is in this case. Because the mind either puts no significance in it all or it places a selective significance. Full disclosure, this might not be the most apt comparison for the topics that had been previously discussed above. Afterall, the basic concept of equality (as I perceive it) involves more parties than just two (vis-a-vi, Men & Women, White & Black, et. al.). But the point that I had taken from Cassie's words is to emphasize a true self-understanding of what all of your "enemies" could be. This includes realizing that one (perhaps even the greatest) of your enemies that you have to deal with the most on a daily basis.

You. Yes, you reading this, right now. Yourself. I'd suspect that you are quite possibly (in a simultaneous fashion) your greatest possible ally and your greatest enemy to ever walk upon this earth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. And that is precisely why, too. Because of the word 'doubt', itself. Whatever you honestly think about yourself? Whether you believe you can do something or cannot in life? Chances are that you are probably right. Even if it "eschews" reality into the dangers of delusion. Your mind makes it so. Every time.

Anyway, as far as mental perceptions go? This video opened a lot of paths and avenues for me to explore. On the table of equality, can we truly bring all of our issues to the fore? How can we really do this in today's political climate? How can we stop making it all about ourselves? If equality is to be desired, this would include the well-being of your neighbor just as much as it would for you and your own. I am expected to listen and respect that women undergo various problems in society, yet I have the need to balance this so that I do not kow-tow to the zealously anarchic misandry that our society continues to enable. At the same time, I cannot let them smoke up the genuine problems that women might have. I feel that this is fair when 'The Balance' is to be considered. That being said, I feel that we genuinely need to find a way to bring Men's rights to the table in an honest and peaceful manner. We need to find a solution to bring the lives and well-being in people of all different races and nationalities. Ultimately, I feel that I need to fight the grand problem -- "The Dreaded Wheel". 'The Wheel' being the attempt at fighting a problem with only more what that problem is at it's core. This simply perpetuates the very issue that they believe they are taking a stand against. And once again, I am bothered when I see this done time and time again. That is not at all a solution, it is merely a contribution to the problem. If one's problem is made clear that this wheel keeps spinning, then would it not make sense to try to stop spinning it and break the cycle once and for all? I cannot help but wonder, wouldn't this be genuine progress?

Hmm. As I have tried putting all of this together, I have come to realize that the true reason I had been so bothered by these things before has been because I feel the desire to stand with and protect fellow humans. Not exclusively men in these situations. Not exclusively women in those situations. Not just 'every race excluding mexicans'. Everyone should simply preserve the right to be human. It only feels right that we should care about one another in this regard. In short? I feel that this struggle of the purple road has actually improved for me. Maybe not a lot. But a little bit. Sometimes all we can do as people is keep making steps at their growth.

[Twisted Crow]

I am expected to listen and respect that women undergo various problems in society, yet I have the need to balance this so that I do not kow-tow to the zealously anarchic misandry that our society continues to enable. At the same time, I cannot let them smoke up the genuine problems that women might have. I feel that this is fair when 'The Balance' is to be considered.

I feel that I should, however, clarify something here before certain misunderstandings arise. What I speak of are the toxic elements that rise to the surface when these issues are laid bare. And how these can 'get a pass'. After reading this over a third time, I caught this and felt need to expand on this a tiny bit.

[Remiel]

Dallas, thank you for linking the Cassie Jaye TED talk.  It was, indeed, an encouraging presentation, even though she puts her finger on a universal truth that is sublimely powerful and painful:

When you start to humanize your enemy, you in turn may be dehumanized by your community.

I also think it teaches a very important lesson: that we would all, perhaps, be well served if we were forced to interview--without interrupting--and really listen to, someone with whom we vehemently disagree.

Also, I know that the quote below is two years old, but I feel it bears repeating, because I can't agree with it strongly enough, and because it so eloquently explains what is wrong with politics today:

The main issue with being politically purple these days is threefold.

The first is identity politics - if you belong to a certain group of people, you are expected to vote one way or another.  If you are an ethnic minority, or a woman, or some other group, you are expected to vote Democrat, otherwise you're seen as a 'race traitor' or someone with 'internalized misogyny,' or the like.  The only people who are allowed the freedom to vote Republican and not receive criticism for it are straight white men, and that's because of the rationalization that they're just trying to stay in power.  This kills diversity of political position because you are lumped in with your stated group.  You are not an individual with thoughts and beliefs, you are just another face in the crowd.

The second is demonization.  The other side are not people that you simply have a disagreement with - they are the enemy, they must be destroyed because they are the antithesis of all that is good and such.  The Newsroom talked about this in a little segment while it was on air, with Jeff Daniels listing off why he opposes the extreme right of the political spectrum, a list which he caps off by saying "but above all, I have to hate Democrats."  Those who do not share your political viewpoint cannot simply be people who made a rational decision to believe something.  The common denouncement of the left by the right is that they're just a bunch of decadent, lazy deviants who want all their stuff provided to them for free, and that they want to destroy the basis of American society; the denouncement of the right by the left is that they're a bunch of selfish, bigoted assholes who want to keep minorities down, women in the kitchen, and that they want to keep American society in the 1950s.

The last is the winner-take-all mentality of politics today.  America existed as a country for 80s years before it ran into its first real crisis - slavery, which caused the Civil War - but in those 80 years there were tons of deals and compromises struck in order to keep the peace with regards to the issue.  (The real problem came about when new deals and compromises started to break old ones that were already in place.)  Today, politics is take it or leave it; my way or the highway; no room for compromise.  To a certain degree, this is tied into the fact that the two political parties seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the direction of the country, and with the previous problem of demonization.

A perfect example of this was the 2016 Presidential debate between Clinton and Trump.  It wasn't enough that the two candidates running for President disagreed with each other on matters of policy; they had to destroy the other's character ("When I'm President, I'll throw Hillary in jail.")

[Skynet]

A perfect example of this was the 2016 Presidential debate between Clinton and Trump.  It wasn't enough that the two candidates running for President disagreed with each other on matters of policy; they had to destroy the other's character ("When I'm President, I'll throw Hillary in jail.")

From saying that most Mexican immigrants are rapists to "grabbing 'em by the pussy," President Trump does a good enough job of this himself. And this was all during the election cycle.

[Twisted Crow]

While I won't deny that Trump often has a lot of cringe-level cases of Epic Level "Foot-in-Mouth", a lot of this is the problem I have with our electoral process in general. We've been like this for years. Before we slammed Trump, Bush, Clinton, etc. The tragic thing is that this has been our way for years, and we unknowingly perpetuate the same ignorance as our "forefathers" have.

Yet I loose all Patience, when I think of a bastard brat of a Scotch Peddler, daring to threaten to undeceive the World in their Judgment of Washington, by writing a history of his battles and Campaigns.
—Letter to Benjamin Rush, 25 January 1806

“The minions of power are watching you, to be turned out by the pimp of the White House if you refuse to sustain him. A man sunk so low we can hardly hate. We have nothing but disgust, pity, and contempt.”
—The Weekly Standard [Raleigh, NC], 4 July 1855

(This was regarding Franklin Pierce)

One attack aimed at John Adams is one of my favorites to mention. It describes him as "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, not the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” It was allegedly Jefferson's attack by proxy of journalism. Something that America seems to think doesn't ever happen anymore in our polarized world of politics. The difference is that our language is somewhat different, but these attacks are very much around when we know what to look for.

But this extends well beyond that even to day-to-day attempts to resolve various problems via civil discourse. A problem greater than propaganda is the one that provides their Gerrymander monster the same sacrificial lambs that it has demanded for years; other people. The oft-elected approach is generally far too adversarial for my liking, to where it feels ultimately untenable to resolving any problems we might create. Hell, sometimes this method can even create problems. The power of the internet and it's anonymity doesn't help much and Elliquiy is not without sin, unfortunately. To expect this would be unreasonable and I am still very happy for the community we have. Elliquiy is generally a very welcoming place where people can come together to create whatever they want. Sadly, mosquitoes can still get through the mesh and not all people are aware that "Highlander Method" is not the only method. Nor is it "Best Method". Some will still choose to make calculated attacks toward the person behind a screen, as opposed to whether or not their ideas have merit (which should be the more important matter, typically.). I have had my self-worth attacked and had it completely gotten away with (as far as I am concerned).

Regardless, what really matters to me concerning this approach undermines any proclaimed advocacy for 'tolerance' or resolution. Which is a bit amusing (and puzzling) to me when people claim to be 'anti-war' or 'pacifistic' in some form or fashion, yet they seek out their victories through such ruthless and calculated attacks to shame and dehumanize fellow men and women for the sake of expedience (as one at war would do). It scares me to see how many seem unaware of being guilty of what they seem to hate so much in other people. The bad eggs of Feminism (in spite of their "fight" for things like equality and toxic masculinity) insisting that it is never ever okay for Men to bring up their problems. The thoughtless inclination among some people to push that 'Racism' and 'Sexism' should only apply to when certain races or sexes are guilty of committing it (which is, ironically, fundamentally racist and/or sexist, in of themselves). While such hypocrisy clearly curses them, I'm mostly disappointed at myself for giving these people the power to hurt me with their words in the first place.  -_-

Yet, these examples (among many) are reasons that I still continue to urge all people to fight their monsters without becoming one of them. When you gaze into the abyss? Well, I think you all how know the rest of that one goes. Unfortunately, it seems the mutual destruction that such a abyss provides is more preferable toward people simply because it is easier.

Anyway, it is my opinion that the 'Highlander Method' rarely ever solves any problem. Usually if it does, the solution is either to bury so that it can come back from death later, or let it spur more issues immediately when dragged into the mud by everyone else. When only some people can bring their issues to that table and not others, it hurts everyone at the table. Not only "enemies", but all involved and whatever "noble" movements we might be fighting or striving for. Makes me think of Martin Luther King's "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Not entirely applicable, I guess. Though, it has a similar relationship, I think.

I feel like I am among few that recognize when everyone around me is caked with mud and ask the big question: "Can't we climb out of the mud and talk about why we are throwing mud at each other? Because our parents did it? Because their parents did it? Do we have to do this, as well?"