You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
July 20, 2018, 07:31:09 PM

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 2268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 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 »

Online 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.