You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
July 19, 2018, 10:50:28 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'  (Read 2265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online DallasTopic starter

  • Absolute Equality & Compassion Advocate / 'He Who Makes Games' / The 'Twisted Crow'
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Houston, TX (United States)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is harder to see into than people's nature
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« on: March 04, 2017, 07:39:06 PM »
Quote from: Disclaimer
Note: These are my personal feelings that I just need to get off my chest and out of my head before they eat me alive. ::)

To be honest, this may have been better suited as a blog, but I wanted to be on the safe side (since it essentially covers Politics). Truth be told, I didn't really want this to end up in PROC but it seems like it's the only suitable place. Even though this seems to deal with general woes about it than the problems themselves.

So, FYI: This pertains to the feeling of lacking a place in 'the political world' in general, not so much on political/controversial issues themselves. They can be used to help illustrate your point on why it makes you feel conflicted, but do not use this as a place to just "splurge" as we have other topics here for that.

Also... examples and stories from here are not meant to explicitly target or generalize those with any/all Right or Left viewpoints, but more so how I (possibly we) may feel from the extreme 'cavalier-ism' regarding said viewpoints.



The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'






Fiscal Conservative + Social Liberal (+ Unlucky Geography) = Conflict.

Conflict among ones neighbor. Conflict with those that one cares about with varying self interests.

It eventually equals conflict within ones self.
 

That is essentially my day-to-day life on the political spectrum. Instead of the 'bliss' that seems to come with full blown political parties just having the one 'other' major opposition (At least, this is the way I have simplified it for myself to preserve some sanity. It is very possible that it is much more complicated than this). I also feel that I clash with other 'Purples' as well, given the nature of how "unofficial" our political creeds may be on the representative side of things. I feel that people like me do not have an adequate 'voice' in politics. Consequently, it feels like I have damn near everyone and their grandma in opposition when I look at the two ends of the scale. Republican supporters have branded me 'weak', 'cowardly' or 'an overly sensitive pansy'. There have been democrats that have stated that I was 'emotionless', 'cruel', 'detached', 'insensitive', etc. Not even going to get into the somewhat amusing irony of how contradicting the two extreme points of view seem to be with me. What's more, I don't really feel like getting into how some of both can be true in a way (At least, not in this initial post. Maybe in another one later, if it comes up).

Aside from such a wide stark contrast in those two sets of labels, what I see from my perspective is two (supposedly) different extremes so desperate and dependent upon one series of political views. In the heat of their passion (right or wrong) they can still bear the same bite, the same venom and possibly same disregard for what makes me human. Do I find these moments painful? Sure, although sometimes it is amusing in a twisted sort of way. Both the pragmatist devil and the romantic angel over my shoulders can't really seem to agree on whether or not this is funny or tragic. It's like I am a half-elf in a fantasy world, bastardized by both "pure" races that simply deny me a right to voice. It is one of the reasons I don't normally care to go 'off into the weeds' with the nasty world of US Politics. Seems to me like we get so caught up with emotion, tradition and novelty that it's all too easy to just forget about reason altogether. Maybe it is just easier to keep drinking the poison, instead. Maybe it just makes us feel better to cast blame on someone, just even for a moment. Even if they themselves might not deserve it.

Now, to explain...

I was originally aiming to put this somewhere else on Elliquiy. The thing is, I don't want this to be another 'PROC Arena' or pseudo "social media feed on today's news". We have topics like that already that serve these purposes. This was meant to be more of a vent for me and possible civil discussion with others related, sharing, empathy, introspective attempts to understand, etc.. So by all means, discuss if you want to discuss. I just do not want this to be another host for minor squabbles on issues that can't seem to be resolved through 'reactive ridicule from fits of emotion' or 'Info Wars! Episode VII: Orange Julius Caesar Awakens'. Seriously... I will say this once more: We have plenty of topics in PROC for that. The purpose of this topic for me (and maybe others) is a general attempt to relate. To speak on my own intentions: I simply want to know how (un)alone I might be in relation to others that could be in this same boat. Just as well; this can be open for others that feel "purple" politically, as well (as opposed to straight blue or red).

On myself? I live in Texas. According to an ignorance-favored sort of narrative, we're 'apparently' supposed to be a bunch of gun-lovin', racist bible-thumpers that 'hate the gays and transgenders' and preach how 'abortions are murder'... blah blah blah. ::) Now, that's not to say that we don't have people here (in Texas) that are like that. Unfortunately, we do. But even some of the most 'country-fied' redneck people I've met around these parts have surprised me in political viewpoints. Doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them on said viewpoints, but they give me pause to consider. Turns out, we aren't quite as 'rigid' as we are often 'type-casted' to be.

Did you know that over 3.3~ million Texas voters voted Democrat back in 2012? This was against the 4.5~ million that voted Republican (Romney) that year. If this vote were any accurate scale to represent a majority voice, it could mean roughly 42%~ of us actually wanted Obama (or somebody else besides Romney) that year. Now, I'm not going to get into my "Value of Voting" lecture here. And I'm not going to wander off into my whole diatribe on how statistics can be easily misrepresented. All I am saying is that this was enough to make me wonder about things. But to my original point, in this 'winner-take-all' system, it seems all too often to me that we appear 'painted' a uniform color (socially, as well as politically) based on illusions of 'popular belief' and approval. Curiously, I was also surprised to see how many Californians voted Republican that same year. It made me think that the popular vote could be kind of important to me for an entirely different reason. You may get an idea that, in spite of whom eventually 'won' the State; it was not necessarily as 'unanimous' amongst the people as one might be lead to believe.

So, in conclusion... maybe I'm not the only Purple out there. Maybe I'm not the only Purple on Elliquiy.

But it doesn't change that feeling of loneliness in the political world to me. A cornucopia of individual political views that don't seem to 'fit right' in any party. I can't even seem to find a third party that adequately represents/looks after my interests. I mean, people tell me I'm a 'Libertarian' but... it feels like there are a bazillion different kinds of Libertarians to a point where that concept seems blurry to me.

Your thoughts on me (or my problem), or your personal experiences, thoughts and/or feelings on being 'Purple', anything like that are considered welcome contributions to this. This is meant to be a thread of discussion, relation, understanding, compassion and/or civility. This thread is not your political battlefield or arena. While opinions are welcome, I encourage any participants to honor my request for myself (and any other that may share). If, for some reason, one forgets this (even if it is myself)... a polite reminder should suffice. Really, though... this is meant to be less about debating individual issues and more regarding to the "Purple stigma" feeling itself. Now, that's not to say we can't use issues as an example:

A very simple example of what is acceptable (unless Elliquiy Staff sees differently)

'Donald Trump is our new President of the United States'

Fiscal Conservative Dallas: "Whew, unexpected... but we'll see how this goes. He could be great for our economy or disastrous."
Social Liberal Dallas: "Oh my god, Donald Trump is our next President of the United States. What have we done?"


But not if they have no productive purpose in getting the point across...

An example of derailing crap that I don't want to see in this topic

'Donald Trump is our new President of the United States'

Fake Viewpoint #1 to Set Up Troll Joke: "We are doomed"
Fake Viewpoint #2 to Set Up Troll Joke: "We are doomed"

I hope the purpose for this topic is understood and respected.

Thanks for, at least, giving this a read.  :-)

~Dall
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 09:02:27 PM by Dallas »

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2017, 11:47:04 AM »
Fiscal conservative, social liberal sums up my general position pretty well too. Admittedly if I'm forced to choose between them, I'll generally lean in favor of spending what's necessary, but otherwise "politically purple" fits pretty well. So no, you're not alone here.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 03:13:56 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Online RedRose

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2017, 02:25:15 PM »
Quote
Republican supporters have branded me 'weak', 'cowardly' or 'an overly sensitive pansy'. There have been democrats that have stated that I was 'emotionless', 'cruel', 'detached', 'insensitive', etc.
It's like I am a half-elf in a fantasy world, bastardized by both "pure" races that simply deny me a right to voice. It is one of the reasons I don't normally care to go 'off into the weeds' with the nasty world of US Politics.


story of my life

Online Lustful Bride

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2017, 02:32:47 PM »

Offline Sofia Grace

  • Do not fashion me into a maiden who needs saving from a dragon. I am the dragon, and I will eat you whole.
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2014
  • Location: New England
  • Gender: Female
  • My neck is open wide, begging for a fist around it
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2017, 07:25:08 PM »
This is why we get along well.   :-)

Offline Life in Color

  • Dame of Comic Delights • Cure to Writer's Block • Crossover Queen • Lover of Heroes and Villains • Pro-Mutant • #teamgreenspider • #teamarkhammaiden • #teamdreynastia • #teamboyscout •
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Colorado
  • Gender: Female
  • 🎶 You're the light from the moon tonight 🎶
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3

Offline LostInTheMist

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2017, 10:52:06 PM »
I doubt you'll find many social conservatives on Elliquiy. Our application questions tend to make it clear that this is not exactly "their" kind of place if they're socially conservative at least on the issue of gender, gay, transexual rights, and similar issues.

I consider myself a fiscal leftist. Some might call it a liberal, but I don't know. What I, personally, mean by this is that:

• I don't believe in free market economics. In fact, I believe in almost the opposite. The government, I believe, is more efficient than the free market in most endeavors (and there are many statistics out there to support this belief), and will attempt to set a price that is as low as possible and thus obtainable for most people.

• I don't believe that big government is evil, nor do I see it necessarily as a negative. This is not to say that I think everyone and their grandmothers should have government jobs. I don't mind a big government, so long as it's not a bloated government.

• I support the nationalization of health insurance, shipping and banking, to name a few. I shouldn't have to go to a private bank (half a step better than a loan shark) to fund my education.

• I support a high minimum wage for working-class Americans (at the very least a living wage).

• I believe every American should have the opportunity to go to college, and if they can't afford it, the government should pay for it.

• I'm willing to pay (lots of) extra taxes to support these ideas.

I'm just wondering where a fiscal conservative stands on such issues? Not looking to debate the merits of the bullet points up there, just looking to see whether I'm really a fiscal liberal (a term I've never used for myself), or whether I'm talking at cross purposes.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 10:54:10 PM by LostInTheMist »

Offline Vekseid

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2017, 02:29:47 AM »
There are a few, though E tends to soften such people unless they go out of their way to harass other members. Others decide that they don't want to be on such a 'sinful' site any longer or whatever.



What gets me is how people use fiscal conservatism as a justification for voting Republican.

Republicans voted to add ten trillion to the debt with next to no fanfare, the moment Obama was out of office.

How does a fiscally conservative person square this sort of attitude - deficits only matter with a Democrat in the White House - with being Republican?

Offline Tamhansen

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2017, 03:29:38 AM »
As an outsider, having spent a lot of time in the US, but still an outsider, it amazes me how the country as a whole seems to have this whole 'black and white' mentality. A country of extremes where it's either for or against, right or wrong, Elephant or Donkey, with absolutely no possibility of a middle ground.

I was raised in a country that is the exact opposite. Everything is middle ground and compromise. Sometimes our country swings to the left or the right, but on average, we're usually smack dab in the middle.

In the Netherlands there are many political parties, each with their own ideals running from a very socialist statist party to a very european right wing. Of course some of the parties up for election are 'crazy/joke' parties. Just like the US had that tiger guy, or Gary Johnson. But overall there are roughly 12 serious parties in contention. And because the votes are spread between them government tends to be a compromise. Not a stalemate like the Obama administration was, where nothing got done because everyone was fighting each other, but a compromise where everyone gets something.

Now I'm not saying the US needs twelve parties, but what it does seem to need is a party of the middle ground. A party that understands that spending on social issues is a neccesity, but that it does need to be done with care.

The problem I have with those calling themselves 'Fiscally conservative' and I mainly mean the politicians who do is that they focus this behaviour solely on small programmes that hardly make a dent on the budget, or on the tax pressure. Which by the way, despite President Cheeto's claim, is lower in the US than nearly anywhere in the developed world. Especially the white middle class that is always complaining about their taxes, pay less than their counterparts anywhere in Europe for example.

If the fiscally conservative truly wanted to relieve the tax burden on people, they'd start slashing programmes that weigh heavy on the budget. Military spending, Medicaid/medicare and pension spending. All things the Obama administration was trying to do. (So maybe they're the actual fiscal conservatives, not the republicans who cut programmes like food stamps. Less than a tenth of a procent of the budget, the EPA, less than one procent and so on.)

Another way to relieve tax burdens on citizens is making companies, especially large companies pay their fair share. But instead, the Oompa loompa administration is cutting taxes for multinationals and also cutting inheritance tax. Something only the richest 4 percent of Americans even ever come into contact with. And by doing this, the tax burden on the average working person will only become more, not less.

Offline LostInTheMist

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2017, 05:54:00 AM »
As an outsider, having spent a lot of time in the US, but still an outsider, it amazes me how the country as a whole seems to have this whole 'black and white' mentality. A country of extremes where it's either for or against, right or wrong, Elephant or Donkey, with absolutely no possibility of a middle ground.

I was raised in a country that is the exact opposite. Everything is middle ground and compromise. Sometimes our country swings to the left or the right, but on average, we're usually smack dab in the middle.

In the Netherlands there are many political parties, each with their own ideals running from a very socialist statist party to a very european right wing. Of course some of the parties up for election are 'crazy/joke' parties. Just like the US had that tiger guy, or Gary Johnson. But overall there are roughly 12 serious parties in contention. And because the votes are spread between them government tends to be a compromise. Not a stalemate like the Obama administration was, where nothing got done because everyone was fighting each other, but a compromise where everyone gets something.

Now I'm not saying the US needs twelve parties, but what it does seem to need is a party of the middle ground. A party that understands that spending on social issues is a neccesity, but that it does need to be done with care.

The problem I have with those calling themselves 'Fiscally conservative' and I mainly mean the politicians who do is that they focus this behaviour solely on small programmes that hardly make a dent on the budget, or on the tax pressure. Which by the way, despite President Cheeto's claim, is lower in the US than nearly anywhere in the developed world. Especially the white middle class that is always complaining about their taxes, pay less than their counterparts anywhere in Europe for example.

If the fiscally conservative truly wanted to relieve the tax burden on people, they'd start slashing programmes that weigh heavy on the budget. Military spending, Medicaid/medicare and pension spending. All things the Obama administration was trying to do. (So maybe they're the actual fiscal conservatives, not the republicans who cut programmes like food stamps. Less than a tenth of a procent of the budget, the EPA, less than one procent and so on.)

Another way to relieve tax burdens on citizens is making companies, especially large companies pay their fair share. But instead, the Oompa loompa administration is cutting taxes for multinationals and also cutting inheritance tax. Something only the richest 4 percent of Americans even ever come into contact with. And by doing this, the tax burden on the average working person will only become more, not less.

I more or less agree with everything you just said. However, with two major parties there are some major differences between members of the same party. For example, I'm way to the left of the majority of the Democratic party, more along the lines of Bernie Sanders (who is actually a third-party candidate; a Socialist, not a Democrat) than any of the Democratic leadership. Meanwhile there are Democrats elected from primarily red states who are more conservative than some Republicans from primarily blue states. (Or well, there used to be liberal Republicans, but not so much any more.)

That's the problem with our system. We have two parties, and that does create a red-and-blue system. I have to vote for the Democrats because they're the party that can actually WIN that most closely aligns itself with my beliefs....

I don't know. It sometimes depresses me. I've been seriously considering moving to the Netherlands or Scandinavia for a while now. I couldn't afford it right at the moment, but....

How do you guys feel about immigrants?

Online RedRose

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2017, 07:37:33 AM »
Agreed.
I was raised not discussing topics that would cause fights. Most people didn't tell their friends or kids who they were going to vote for. There were certainly a few "militants", especially on the extremes, but most people just didn't really care if you were left or right wing (extremes, again, brought different reactions sometimes).

You wouldn't see a friendship falling apart, or resorting to insults, because Jean votes for socialists and Jacques for right wingers. That is, if they even knew what the other did. I have friends commies to extreme right wing. I don't care. My friend isn't suddenly another person when I discover who he votes for, and if I'm shocked I actually ask why and discuss it nicely. Family I hold even more sacred, and I know which topics to avoid with whom, and they do the same if they're smart, and we can have a family meal with left and right wingers, religious and not religious, without even touching on those topics except maybe a corny joke.

I've seen from afar how friendships of decades died due to American politics. You enjoyed the person for 40 years or something and now you suddenly can't anymore? I will never understand it.

Offline lillisa

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2017, 09:43:49 AM »
I more or less agree with everything you just said. However, with two major parties there are some major differences between members of the same party. For example, I'm way to the left of the majority of the Democratic party, more along the lines of Bernie Sanders (who is actually a third-party candidate; a Socialist, not a Democrat) than any of the Democratic leadership. Meanwhile there are Democrats elected from primarily red states who are more conservative than some Republicans from primarily blue states. (Or well, there used to be liberal Republicans, but not so much any more.)

That's the problem with our system. We have two parties, and that does create a red-and-blue system. I have to vote for the Democrats because they're the party that can actually WIN that most closely aligns itself with my beliefs....

I don't know. It sometimes depresses me. I've been seriously considering moving to the Netherlands or Scandinavia for a while now. I couldn't afford it right at the moment, but....

How do you guys feel about immigrants?

I would like to say that we are very welcoming to migrants, but lately there seems to be a backlash against non white immigrants. Other than that you're fine.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2017, 10:16:52 AM »
I would like to say that we are very welcoming to migrants, but lately there seems to be a backlash against non white immigrants. Other than that you're fine.

This.

A lot of people in Europe are getting scared of non white migrants, especially north african muslims. And our government isn't helping. Either they vilify the immigrants or they coddle them.

Offline Noisekick

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2017, 09:30:53 PM »
Fiscal conservative + social liberal sounds like Libertarian Party kind of stuff to me.

I am personally more fiscally center left and socially liberal with the exception of leaning pro-life in personal opinion while not really going to make any effort to stop people from getting abortions (they can get abortions if they want, however I would prefer people to give birth and then give these kids up for adoption while being compensated by the state to make the hospital stay, delivery and putting up for adoption virtually free) and pro 2nd amendment (and equivalents).

Also a big fan of coops. One of the biggest coops is Mondragon and their highest paid employee is only allowed to earn eight times that of the lowest paid employee aka if the lowest paid employee gets eight Euros an hour (1280 Euros a month/15,360 Euros annually), the CEO can get a maximum of 64 Euros an hour which corresponds to 10240 Euros a month or about 120,000 annually. However in most locations the executives only get five times that of a minimum wage worker. Plus coops are usually entirely worker owned and the equal share in profit provides incentive to be more productive.

However here in Europe with the migrants, at least in Germany, not too many people have a problem with the refugees. Germans are more concerned about Serbs and Libyans than about Syrians and Iraqis. I actually live two houses down from a refugee center and there haven't been any problems with them at all. I do not think it is so much about whether the immigrants and refugees are white or not. It is more the fear of where exactly they come from and how high crime statistics are. It is more likely people will have a problem with people coming from Algeria or Libya than if they were coming from the Levant like Syria, Lebanon or Jordan. Hungary is a different story (they don't like immigrants, period.).

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2017, 05:56:33 AM »
Should I wave a hand as one of Es nominal conservatives? LoL kidding of course. Actually I am a pretty right leaning guy, but if I had to put a label on myself these days it would be moderate independent with conservative tendencies. Just call me a gun loving redneck if you like, but I like to think I am tolerant.

You can also call me purple. I left president blank in the last election because I found both choices to be nauseating. And dam the political system has devolved into two sides, each is against whatever the other is for and vice versa. It is maddening, one can literally watch them switch sides and stances dependent on who is in the White House if you pay attention. I do not think any of them stand for anything except getting re-elected. And everything becomes combative.

We all have our sacred cows and I see few things brought up that do not have some merit if one looks deep enough. Some point or another. If there could just be some give and take and acknowledgement of concerns with a dose of meet in the middle we might not all get what we want. But we could live with it.

As a side note I have pretty much ceased watching news other than skimming headlines. It just all seems so silly to me this point. I feel I am not alone no matter the political view.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 05:59:43 AM by Retribution »

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2017, 08:36:08 PM »
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.

Remember death panels?  Death panels was a deliberate statement to quash negotiation on a national healthcare system, because you do not negotiate with the people who might be trying to kill your grandmother.  The debate over national healthcare is not a question of method - how do we accomplish this - but a question of priorities - should we accomplish this?  The Democrat answer was yes, we should; the Republican answer was no, we shouldn't.

For these reasons, I do actually worry that there will come a day where there is only a one party system in America, because one of the two will crash and burn and there won't be anyone to replace them.

Online Lustful Bride

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2017, 08:57:05 PM »
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.

Remember death panels?  Death panels was a deliberate statement to quash negotiation on a national healthcare system, because you do not negotiate with the people who might be trying to kill your grandmother.  The debate over national healthcare is not a question of method - how do we accomplish this - but a question of priorities - should we accomplish this?  The Democrat answer was yes, we should; the Republican answer was no, we shouldn't.

For these reasons, I do actually worry that there will come a day where there is only a one party system in America, because one of the two will crash and burn and there won't be anyone to replace them.

There is so much truth to all of this its depressing. I bolded the last part because I think our best chance is if both parties crash and then reform....hopefully with maybe a third or fourth party coming along as well.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2017, 11:49:33 AM »
Plus a million, I utterly agree all around.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 16/17 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2017, 12:28:50 PM »
The funny thing is that you can be socially conservative and comfortable on E.  All you have to do is ignore the people who tell you that isn't possible.

There are many right-wing statements, positions and opinions I can understand even though I don't agree with them and over time I've learned that fighting them gets us nowhere.  Learning why people feel or think the way they do gives me the toehold I need to talk with them - with being the operative word here.  People who talk at me turn me off even (or especially) when I agree with them.  Talking at (or as some enlightened individuals call it talking to) someone tells us the person speaking isn't listening to us and therefore doesn't respect us.  A lack of respect on your part makes you irrelevant. 

I don't want to hear your opinion - even if I am in complete agreement with it - if you don't care about mine.

Why?  Because you are wrong to think that having an opinion makes you right.  In your mind the only opinion is yours and the only person is you.

I may be robin's egg blue with a splash of lavender but I'm willing to let you be any color you want as long as you pretty much keep it to yourself and don't try to change me.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2017, 12:31:57 PM by Beguile's Mistress »

Offline PervertedBrother

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2017, 07:39:11 AM »
There is no more right or left.  Both parties are simply populist now.  That is why I vote third party.  I have NEVER cast a vote for a major party candidate for president.  And I'm proud of that.

Obama bombed just as many countries as Bush (more.)  Bush spent just as much as Clinton (more.)  There isn't any difference anymore.

In modern phrasing, I guess the label that fits me best is libertarian, but I dislike the anarchist and left libertarian sects of that philosophy.  The people who don't really care about liberty, they just want their weed.  The Gary Johnson wing.

I like to refer to myself as a anti-federalist.  I believe that if at all possible government should have nothing to do with anything, and if there HAS to be government regulation or organization it should be at the state level.

Online DallasTopic starter

  • Absolute Equality & Compassion Advocate / 'He Who Makes Games' / The 'Twisted Crow'
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Houston, TX (United States)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is harder to see into than people's nature
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2017, 10:21:28 PM »
The term I like using is 'Anti-Establishment', but mostly just because I'm amused by how easily it frightens some people.  ^-^

Online Oniya

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2017, 11:15:52 PM »
The term I like using is 'Anti-Establishment', but mostly just because I'm amused by how easily it frightens some people.  ^-^

It's all of my missed rebellion years rolled into one word!  ;D  (I managed to write both a history paper and a German paper about the record labeling hearings of 1985).

Online DallasTopic starter

  • Absolute Equality & Compassion Advocate / 'He Who Makes Games' / The 'Twisted Crow'
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Location: Houston, TX (United States)
  • Gender: Male
  • Nothing is harder to see into than people's nature
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2017, 11:25:45 PM »
Heh. A little bit of it is kind of a nod toward the 60s -- or at least, what I have read and gathered from that particular era in the US. It's not like I can remember it myself from experience. :-)

Offline VonHellsing

  • Praetor of Gentle Femdom; Field-Marshall of Annoyance and Bad Exposition
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2017
  • Location: Wallowing in my room.
  • Gender: Male
  • Uninteresting and petty, but loves to bang.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2017, 07:25:17 PM »
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.

Remember death panels?  Death panels was a deliberate statement to quash negotiation on a national healthcare system, because you do not negotiate with the people who might be trying to kill your grandmother.  The debate over national healthcare is not a question of method - how do we accomplish this - but a question of priorities - should we accomplish this?  The Democrat answer was yes, we should; the Republican answer was no, we shouldn't.

For these reasons, I do actually worry that there will come a day where there is only a one party system in America, because one of the two will crash and burn and there won't be anyone to replace them.

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.

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.

EDIT: Very sorry if I needlessly rambled and seemed accusatory. This is something I have discussed many times with several different people so I'm a little passionate in this case, where other times I try to avoid politics.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 07:27:02 PM by VonHellsing »

Online Lustful Bride

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2017, 07:27:38 PM »
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.

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.

EDIT: Very sorry if I needlessly rambled and seemed accusatory. This is something I have discussed many times with several different people so I'm a little passionate in this case, where other times I try to avoid politics.

+1 Couldn't have said it better if I tried. Though it doesn't help that those on the Far Right are lso being absolutely horrible as well. But they aren't the ones causing riots, so sadly they are the lesser evil for now :/.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 07:33:11 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2017, 08:33:07 PM »
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.

Offline VonHellsing

  • Praetor of Gentle Femdom; Field-Marshall of Annoyance and Bad Exposition
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2017
  • Location: Wallowing in my room.
  • Gender: Male
  • Uninteresting and petty, but loves to bang.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2017, 10:52:38 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 10:54:53 AM by VonHellsing »

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2017, 12:29:17 PM »
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.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2017, 03:33:34 PM »
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.

Offline VonHellsing

  • Praetor of Gentle Femdom; Field-Marshall of Annoyance and Bad Exposition
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2017
  • Location: Wallowing in my room.
  • Gender: Male
  • Uninteresting and petty, but loves to bang.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2017, 06:41:54 PM »
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.

Offline Vekseid

Re: The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2017, 08:05:07 PM »
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.