The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

[Prolescum]

Original topic: here

But to summarize the regressive left to me are a particularly militant and radical section of the left who in the name of equality, in their minds anyway, have either done or turned a blind eye to some pretty racist and vile things.

Okay, let's unpack that somewhat.

Firstly, you use the terms regressive, militant, and radical with regards to a "left". As an opening gambit, this appears somewhat of a pot calling a kettle black. Surely, as implied, you believe yourself to be "better"? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just having a whinge; I hope in your later paragraphs you can justify the pejoratives. That said...

Do you mean, there is a subset of "left" that are regressive or it's the left? It'll be important at some point, I suspect. Either way, In what way is liberty or egalitarianism regressive? Do you genuinely believe equality (or just some tenets perhaps) to be backwards? I'd love to understand that perspective. If it isn't addressed below, please enlighten me.

You describe them as militant and radical, but this instinctively feels like hyperbole. What is the criteria for militancy or radicalism from your perspective? Bitching on Twitter? Writing witticisms on card to display on campuses?

Seriously, have this "left" taken up arms? Conspired in secret to overthrow governments? Built fifth columns in otherwise forward-thinking, peace-loving, conservative* "right" communities?


* By conservative I mean conservative, not the nebulous-whatever-the-fuck Americans mean by it these days.

I also count among the regressive left people who just outright lie or cry wolf with poor evidence about someone else being a racist, sexist and what have you

Well, given that your standard of evidence, and of course your interpretation thereof, cannot in any meaningful way be considered authoritative, surely simply pointing out their hypocrisy is the right thing to do? What is it about this in particular that causes you to build up the aggression necessary to make every descriptor disparaging?

Or are you crying wolf with poor evidence?

people who undermine the nation state by insisting that illegal immigration should be tolerated as if the border didn't exist or doesn't matter

Whoa there, Danno! You'll have to justify that, I'm afraid. The US is just as liable as everyone else to receive refugees, and often needs migrants to fill workforce gaps. I'd you to show me that these "left" are "insisting that illegal immigration should be tolerated" and they're not actually describing other types of migration such as refugees, and then that it necessarily undermines the nation state.

people who constantly shame the United States and exaggerate its past or current flaws while ignoring the failures of other countries

Tu quoque of the weakest order. You should sweep your shitty behaviour under the carpet because other countries have also been shitty?

I'll say this, America should be ashamed of its past (and present). As should Japan and Britain, Belgium and Russia. Most countries are shit, run by cunts to line their pockets and fuck everyone else in the arse. We will never be better people if we don't acknowledge our flaws, if we don't learn the lessons of our forebears. If this is new to you, I would solemnly suggest you pick up the history of any country, any governing body, and that includes the shitshow that is America.

people who insist that non-whites can never be racist

That is fucking stupid. As is the concept of race.

people disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses or who try to ban them from speaking.

I'd like to see some of these before I comment on the matter, although I'll note that it is common knowledge that the further to the proverbial "right" one ventures, the closer to hate speech we invariably find; less so with their counterparts on the red team (simply due to the nature of the game).

In the UK, hate speech (that which intended to incite hatred) is grounds for denial of entry into the country as well as a punishable offense.

I don't necessarily view as regressive left support for universal healthcare, gun control or income inequality.

Necessarily?

I probably disagree in most cases, but I don't think they're necessarily crazy for it.

Eh? Regressive and crazy aren't synonyms. At all. Please make it clearer what you mean to say and why you believe it, you're just being pointlessly antagonistic. The founder of this site once said, "if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas." Is it constructive to squirt as much invective into your sentences as you can squeeze out?

Feel free to expand on why you might disagree with universal health care, gun control and income equality, I'm interested in your conclusions and how they came about.

I don't view genuine anti-racists as regressive provided they don't attack white people and don't try to impose ridiculous standards of what a non-racist person should be like that are only applied to whites while everyone else gets a pass.

May I have your criteria for "ridiculous" in this context? What are the generic standards that normally apply?

I don't believe in "micro-aggressions", that's silly.

I don't even know what this is. I mean, I understand the words, but I have no idea of its usage in common parlance and, taking its constituent parts as the basis for my understanding, I don't get the context in which you use it here.

I don't believe in cultural appropriation, that's silly, nobody has a collective copyright on their culture.

I agree, but I also understand why it can be upsetting to be portrayed in certain (almost always negative ways - even if unintended). Look up native Americans in Star Trek.

I don't believe that "manspreading" is a thing

People sit in all manner of ways; I'm not sure why that's a thing to get annoyed about. It's incredible to me that it's a contentious issue, as in, why do you give a fuck about what they're moaning about?

and I don't believe there is a rape culture in the US, that's hysterical.

Well the term rape culture is not a helpful one, I'll grant you, but I'm not blind to the perspectives (real or imagined) of my fellow human beings.

Have men traditionally dominated women? Yep.
Has this manifested in cultural as well as physical domination*? Yessiree!
Did the advent of contraceptives give men a sense of entitlement...?

I don't believe that being oppressed, whether it's real oppression or imagined oppression, gives you a pass to act like a jackass or to respond with racism.

That's a weird thing. Acting like a twat (the UK jackass) is not only the purview of the oppressed. Anyone can do it in a free and open society. Is there a reason behind your umbrage? I haven't come across one yet, only that a couple of items of non-essential fluffery have annoyed you. Do you feel somehow impotent against a philosophical tide? Are you losing a war with them?

I don't believe in reparations for slavery

It's a bit late, but Americans should be constantly reminded of how their actions don't match their ideals, right? I mean, that's essentially what you believe you do to these supposed hypocrites above, isn't it? You can't have a manifest destiny by simply ignoring anything you don't like. People simply don't work that way.

that's silly since most whites didn't own slaves and many blacks came to America after slavery and in any other circumstance this would be WAY past the statute of limitations.

This is essentially gobbledegook. Your statute of limitations wouldn't apply in such a situation anyway, reparations wouldn't be received by those to whom it doesn't apply, and I have no idea why the amount of white people who owned slaves is relevant beyond some obtuse (for me) calculation to determine the size of payments. Payments made by a government, not individuals as I understand it.

Why are reparations an issue for you?

If my great great great great grandpa kidnapped your great great great great grandpa guess what? Tough shit, my family doesn't owe you anything.

Can I ask you to explain the morality of this? Thanks.

Besides this sets the precedent that collective race blame is okay paving the way for actual white supremacists to argue their case.

Collective race blame, as you put it, already existed. What paved the way for white supremacists was loss of privilege. Happens all the time, although not often with that amount of venom.

Someone could just as easily argue based on this logic that blacks owe whites reparations because the black population has had a higher crime rate than the white population in recent decades and that's silly.

Your reductive argument here has no real merit. It's not logical either. Apples are not oranges.

Why one stance is considered racist and the other isn't I have no idea.

I don't believe the argument against reparations is inherently racist, but it is one that racists hold (obviously). It would be up to you to argue it successfully without race being a factor (good luck!).
I'm of the view that if you see everything as black and white (figuratively, metaphorically, and/or literally), you're a fucking idiot whose views can be dismissed.

I believe that the T in LGBT has gone way too far and is now imposing a totally subjective perception of reality on me that isn't backed by biology.

Why is it only biology that matters in how we relate to each other? That's a rather shallow take, isn't it?

Sorry but if you have a penis, you're not a woman to me.

Then don't shag them.

Period.

Quite.

And there are no 5025025827 genders, there are 2.

Gender literally means "type". Who gives a fuck how other people classify themselves? Seeing as, for some reason, you do, isn't it better that they have clear identifiers so you don't mistakenly end up being attracted to one?

I don't care how you live your life, but don't impose that perception of reality on me and don't tell me that I need to raise my kids in a "gender neutral" way or that I am unfairly "assigning gender" to my child based on his genitals.

I think that's somewhat extreme, but fewer aggressive (and regressive) "male" pastimes might help.

That's stupid. "xe" "xir" "hir" are not part of the English language, speak English.

Languages are living or they are dead, I'd rather the one we share continue indefinitely. It has some great characteristics.

I wouldn't say that Hillary Clinton is a regressive leftist I think she's more of an opportunist pandering to that crowd.

I think she's fucking horrible, but then there are very few politicians who are otherwise.

She doesn't strike me as sincere, but then again actions matter more than intentions and she has dismissed at least a very large number of Trump supporters, half in fact, as just "racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic".

I agree that she's not sincere, but that's by design; politicians are trained to lie, whether to convincingly toe a party line, or to save face. You're correct that actions speak louder than words, which is why the rest of the world can't fathom why you've elected Donald Trump.

To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.

Americans love giving (and receiving) risibly simple solutions for complex problems. It is not surprising that you're all split up into focus groups.

Calling people every "ist" and "phobic" word in the book is nothing but a thought terminating cliche to ignore legitimate issues.

Which is precisely what your post here consists of. Isn't that weird?

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/stat ... 9885301761
Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

She's right. Salafis are non-aggressive to the point of indolence. The creation of Jihadis lies at your door. Also Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, but he's dead :lol:

This is whitewashing.

No more so than claiming the same for Christians.

The Islamic religion demonstrably teaches incredibly over-the-top regressive values about how a government should be run

You've read the Koran?

how it should expand through conquest, how women should be treated, the status of non-believers who face humiliation and a protection tax.

Again, most religions want theocratic states of some form, fundamentally.

It's all in the books.

Agreed. Some books are shit. Robert Heinlein, I'm looking at you.

Read the Qur'an

I have to some extent. It's fucking boring and stupid. As is the Bible, which I've read more than once.

read the hadiths, read about Islamic jurisprudence, these are values antithetical to kind that founded America

All religions are antithetical to a secular government. That's the point of having one. In practice, of course, people's views are influenced by their faith so they're still significant.

they're antithetical to the progress that America has made since then in living up to its ideals

As are other religions like Christianity. Some denominations more than others, just like Islam. It's odd how you're arguing that small factions of one represent the entirety in the latter case.

and also antithetical to the kind of cultures that modern Europe has.

Not really. Wahhabis, sure, but that's also the case for many Evangelicals.

Saying that the ideology is peaceful is like saying that white nationalism is peaceful.

People are trained to dislike other people. Film at 11?

It would literally be the equivalent of Reagan saying during the Cold War:

Let's be clear: Communism is nor our adversary. Communists are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with tyranny, gulags or mass starvation.

No it "literally" wouldn't, that's a spurious comparison. The Cold War was a power struggle played as an ideological one. Communism wasn't your adversary, the Soviet Union was.

If you're going to make excuses for an illiberal ideology in the name of liberalism, you're not a liberal, you're not for progress of any kind, you're a regressive leftist.

I don't believe that's the case, as I understand it they argue for the freedom to worship using whatever you like. Your framing tools are broken.

Well an opportunist in her case because I don't think she's honest, nevertheless this willful ignorance will have dire consequences on foreign policy because you cannot combat an enemy you refuse to understand.

I ask that you take the plank out of your eye before you complain about the splinters others have in theirs.

Know your enemy, first rule of war.

Why is it a war? Is that really the only option?

And even if you have no clue and no desire to act because you're deeply scared that in trying to stop terrorism you're going to turn into a tyrannical government, you still have to be honest at least.

Eh? That's simply fantasy.

First tell the truth, then worry about giving an opinion.

Truth can be spun, everyone knows this. Perhaps fewer more than your current president. All Western societies are broken at the moment, but it isn't Muslims that are to blame, it's rampant and increasingly unhinged neoliberalism. They're pointing at the strange brown people while lifting your wallet.

It would be one thing if she had said "There are problematic values within the Islamic religion, but the government doesn't have the authority to interfere with the religious freedom of its Muslim citizens. We must combat Islamic oppression and terrorism, but we have to be measured in our response so we don't infringe on the rights of Muslims of good will, moderates and reformers who don't mean us harm."

...and Americans will let that incredibly snappy soundbite gain a foothold during lulls in their short attention spans? Many of you are not primed for nuanced discussions. My country is essentially the same, and it's fucking hell on Earth.

But that's not what she said is it? It isn't. Not even close.

You (the royal you) wouldn't listen if she tried. Not that she would as she understands the nature of your political discourse.

Bernie Sanders for that matter hasn't been that far from a regressive.

Quote:
When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car



Do I need to explain why this statement is stupid?

Why is it stupid? It's true, for the most part. Those aren't generally considered (or reported) to be regular experiences of white people.

Here is a quote from a popular leftist Laci Green since I want to get into giving some examples of regressive leftists rather than just talking theoretically:

We are now under total Republican rule. Textbook fascism. Fuck you, white America. Fuck you, you racist, misogynist pieces of shit. G'night.

Not much different to the language you used at the beginning of this post.

Now imagine if someone said after Obama's victories:

We are now under total Democrat rule. Textbook communism. Fuck you, black America. Fuck you, you racist, tyrannical pieces of shit. G'night.

Yaaah... A fucking lot of Americans said exactly those things. On this forum too, if I recall. You're revising history if you think otherwise, chum

I also recommend you check out Sargon of Akkad, Thunderf00t, Bearing, Veemonro, Hayesenberg just to name a few of the people who have documented regressive leftists over the years.

No thanks. Thunderf00t is a cunt. I can't watch or listen to him; it's pure revulsion, I'm afraid. I prefer to read than to watch videos, so fee free to furnish some links.

Take them with a grain of salt if you must, I'm not saying their commentary is always accurate or that they are in any sense an authority, but the people they quote, they quote accurately, literally caught on tape in most cases. Much of their recent content involves letting the regressive left debunk themselves and make a fool of themselves with their own words.

Yeah, but most people on the internet aren't qualified (as in, don't have the nous to express their views succinctly or articulately) to argue a point; all that proves is that some people can get things wrong in a live discussion. I'm falling back on, why the fuck does any of this pointless shit matter to you?
Why is it affecting you this way? Is apoplexy akin to a drug or something? You haven't really defined why any of your positions are, or should be considered, rational.

Here is another regressive getting triggered and crying wolf about "sexual harassment" because someone said to her "My name is Hugh Mungus".

I can't be arsed with this bit.

These are the kind of people that Democrats now pander to. As I said I am not a leftist, but I am concerned with the growing radicalization of the left.

I'd like to know what you mean, as I noted previously, before I address the topic head-on.

We can disagree on a lot of issues constructively but let's stop this idiotic "fuck white people fuck America" stuff.

The two are not necessarily the same, and I don't think it's wise to lump them together.

If Trump is obligated to condemn the KKK and the alt right (which he did and never supported in the first place) why aren't sane leftists expected to repudiate their own crazies?

You haven't convinced me they're crazies so I won't answer that at the moment.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That's stupid. "xe" "xir" "hir" are not part of the English language, speak English.

Languages are living or they are dead, I'd rather the one we share continue indefinitely. It has some great characteristics.

:lol:

This argument always makes me laugh because it typically comes from people that love sharing/making memes. Yet, meme was not a word until Dawkins invented it in the 1970s, and the way it is popularly used today is different from how he defined it and the second definition was not created until well after the internet (another recent word) was invented. I wonder if Tree is also against deepity and truthiness?

 

[Tree]

Okay, let's unpack that somewhat.

Firstly, you use the terms regressive, militant, and radical with regards to a "left". As an opening gambit, this appears somewhat of a pot calling a kettle black. Surely, as implied, you believe yourself to be "better"?

I'm not a leftist to begin with but yes, obviously I do consider non-regressive leftists to be better than regressive leftists.

Do you mean, there is a subset of "left" that are regressive or it's the left? It'll be important at some point, I suspect.

I mean there is a subset of the left that is regressive. That's not to say I agree with the rest, but it's fair to make a distinction between legitimate points of disagreement and outright idiocy and self-righteous hypocrisy.

Either way, In what way is liberty or egalitarianism regressive?

When such a cause is taken far enough that it infringes on the liberty of others or when unrealistic standards of equality are demanded. Or when someone pretends that someone else is oppressed or treated unfairly when in reality the standard applies to everyone.

One example of the top off my head is Anita Sarkeesian who runs a channel called Feminists Frequency and has a lot of followers and millions of views. She once said that the video game industry is sexist and there's sexism in video games and as an example she used a Hitman game that enables the player to kill some strippers and drag their bodies around. This is a stupid complaint. Aside from it being fiction, the game does not single out virtual women at all, if you can even call pixels "women". You can kill any bystanders if you want in that game, which is also a stupid and inefficient way to play the game since you attract unnecessary attention.

Other feminists use GTA V as evidence that games are sexist or that violence against women is normalized in our culture because you can kill hookers to get your money back - except that's also bullshit. The game allows you to kill pretty much anyone. (There's nothing "sexist" about prostitution either.)

Another example is the Black Lives Matter movement. I am not at all impressed by the cases they bring up since often the suspect is shot or hurt because he resists, not because he's black. If I were to behave the same way and resist arrest, I'd be shot too. Such was the case with Michael Brown shot by Darrel Wilson and even though the case didn't even pass the grand jury, there was no proof of foul play or racism and some on the jury were black, the regressives still insist the officer just shot him out of racism when Michael was just minding his own business. He wasn't. He robbed a store, which we have video of, and then by witness accounts and forensics, resisted arrest and was shot while unsuccessfully trying to fight the cop.

Do you genuinely believe equality (or just some tenets perhaps) to be backwards? I'd love to understand that perspective. If it isn't addressed below, please enlighten me.

Generally speaking, I believe in equal rights under the law and also equal responsibility under the law. Obviously a minor shouldn't have the exact same rights as an adult and certain minor-adult interactions that are okay for adult-adult shouldn't be permitted. They're not responsible enough to be allowed to do everything an adult can. Also you have to be a citizen if you want to vote or own guns. Since going to a foreign country is a choice, immigrants should make sure to migrate legally, IF they qualify, and respect the public order and local culture.

You describe them as militant and radical, but this instinctively feels like hyperbole. What is the criteria for militancy or radicalism from your perspective? Bitching on Twitter? Writing witticisms on card to display on campuses?

You can have radical views but make no real effort to make them more widespread.

You can be militant without being radical.

I'm trying to make it clear these people have both bad views and bad methods. Both the content and the delivery repulses me. I would maybe understand a militant approach to an issue if the issue wasn't either a fake issue or trivial as it often is.

Seriously, have this "left" taken up arms? Conspired in secret to overthrow governments? Built fifth columns in otherwise forward-thinking, peace-loving, conservative* "right" communities?

Well now that you mention it, Madonna did say she "thought" about blowing up the White House... all because Trump got elected. Come on, you don't do that, learn to at least control yourself if that's how you feel, making veiled death threats against the legitimately elected president and his ENTIRE administration isn't cool, especially when you have a lot of influence.

Now the anarchist subset of the regressive left does in fact want to one day overthrow the social order and the government. Anarchists have already used violence at Trump's inauguration. They are not good people.

It doesn't matter because the regressive left doesn't need to go that far in order to cause damage anyway. It's enough that they disturb the fabric of society and push people at each other's throats, push bad policy, directly or indirectly incite violence against certain groups of people by dehumanizing males, or whites, or Christians or whoever is the perceived "privileged" class. Scroll back to the comment that Laci made. Are you familiar with the "#killallmen" hashstag? How about the "I drink male tears" t-shirt? So much tolerance and equality...

Well, given that your standard of evidence, and of course your interpretation thereof, cannot in any meaningful way be considered authoritative, surely simply pointing out their hypocrisy is the right thing to do? What is it about this in particular that causes you to build up the aggression necessary to make every descriptor disparaging?

The extreme hypocrisy would be it then as well as their warped priorities. They can go into long tirades about how judging people by their skin color is wrong (it is) and you should judge the individual instead (you should, no disagreement there either), they micro-police your language trying to find any traces of "sexism" and "racism". If they can't, they make up stuff. I don't know if you've ever heard of Donglegate, feel free to google it, but basically two guys got fired because a feminist overheard them making a "dongle joke". The conversation didn't even concern her, it was just between two guys and she shouldn't have been listening in the first place, that's creepy.

You had Shirtgate, another manufactured non-issue where scientist Matt Taylor was bullied to tears by feminist activists. Why? Because he wore a shirt... and the shirt had sexy women on it. How that is "hateful" or "discriminatory" against women I have no idea. It also shows that their priorities are warped.

See:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shirt-is-holding-back-progress

"Your bowling shirt is holding back progress"
"I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing"

This isn't just stupid but an attack on straigh male sexuality. He probably likes hot women, he's got them on his shirt, which was made by a woman by the way, feminists should deal with it. It's not "sexist" it's not even pornographic or indecent, they're clothed. I've been seriously considering getting a shirt like that just to trigger them and hopefully in time they will be desensitized and stop being triggered.

Whoa there, Danno! You'll have to justify that, I'm afraid. The US is just as liable as everyone else to receive refugees, and often needs migrants to fill workforce gaps.

I'm not talking about refugees here but we'll get to that. I'm talking about illegal immigrants, mostly coming from Mexico into the United States. Last time I checked Mexico isn't ravaged by war nor is there any reasonable fear of returning to Mexico. Just because you don't like your country doesn't mean you get to illegally move into another and you don't get refugee status on that alone.

Not only do they want them to stay but they will often call people racist for opposing illegal immigration. What race is an illegal immigrant? A white European can be an illegal immigrant into the US. There are many immigrants from Mexico who are not illegal and nobody cares, nobody bothers them. This has nothing to do with race, it has to do with obeying the law and emigrating legally. Yes there are workforce gaps, there are also many people on welfare or simply out of work.

As someone largely in favor of the free market maybe if they (the unemployed Americans) don't want to work you should follow the free market solution and pay them better to incentivize them or pay for training programs and then hire them? Just a thought. I'm not pro or anti-corporations, free market is not pro-corporation, that's corporatism, but it sounds very strange to me that a left-leaning person would want to artificially help corporations using the power of the government by cheapening labor costs by increasing the supply of available workers, especially the kind willing to work for much less than Americans are...

Hillary and Bernie both supported amnesty for illegals which does nothing but encourage further illegals since they know they won't be punished or deported. For that matter, the term has become taboo, now you're expected to say "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented worker' which is nothing but language micro-policing. Many Trump protesters also call Trump racist because of his support for building a wall and deporting illegals. None of that is racist though. Securing an interntionally recognized border isn't racist. No it's not like the Berlin wall and if it were it would be the stupidest way to keep Americans, one would think that if Trump is an evil tyrant who wants to keep Americans in the country he would just ground the planes and sink all the ships, that seems like a much more effective way. They're crying wolf.

I'd you to show me that these "left" are "insisting that illegal immigration should be tolerated" and they're not actually describing other types of migration such as refugees, and then that it necessarily undermines the nation state.

Again both of the major candidates on the Democratic side advocated amnesty for illegals (all 11 million of them, people IN the country) rather than focusing on securing the border. It was in their platform. Their refugee policy is separate from it.

By definition someone not respecting the border and crossing it illegally undermines the nation state. Boundaries were set in please, respect them, that's all. Same as trespassing into my home undermines my right to property. If you want to come in you ring the door bell, you identify yourself, state your business and ask for permission, you don't jump in through the window.

I'm not sure people even realize how big of a deal it is. An illegal pays no taxes, is in the country without the consent of the people who live there, but he still uses that's country's infrastructure such as roads, is still afforded emergency care because we're not just going to leave someone bleeding out, still benefits from police protection and the army which secures the country. An illegal isn't screened for diseases which might be contagious, isn't screened to make sure he's not a criminal in his own country, isn't interviewed to assess his intentions for being in the country.

Tu quoque of the weakest order. You should sweep your shitty behaviour under the carpet because other countries have also been shitty?

No because I disagree with the strategy of presenting those facts, slavery for example, rather than dispute them.

There's a difference between acknowledging past shitty behavior as a historical fact and exaggerating the facts or using it as a club to beat America over the head with or indoctrinate young impressionable people into thinking their country is significantly worse than it is or conditioning people to despise their own country which doesn't lead to good social cohesion. Please explain what is the point in conditioning young people to be disloyal citizens or demoralizing them to not look after their country's interests?

Do you believe this is a fair or accurate portrayal of American slavery:

is white people’s new deflection from dealing with slavery the “all races have had ProfessorGrundyslaves” thing? is this the new “#AllLivesMatter”??

for the record, NO race outside of europeans had a system that made slavery a *personhood* instead of temporary condition

there is also no race except europeans who kidnapped and transported human beings in order to enslave them and their offspring for life

before europeans invented it as such, slavery was not a condition that was defacto inherited from parent to child.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22369/

I'll say this, America should be ashamed of its past (and present). As should Japan and Britain, Belgium and Russia. Most countries are shit, run by cunts to line their pockets and fuck everyone else in the arse. We will never be better people if we don't acknowledge our flaws, if we don't learn the lessons of our forebears. If this is new to you, I would solemnly suggest you pick up the history of any country, any governing body, and that includes the shitshow that is America.

I'm well aware of how shitty human nature is. The regressive left? Not so much. Far too many think America and white people are uniquely evil.

To quote from the father of the regressive left Numb Chumpsky, sadly a far more influential person than he deserves to be:

We should not forget that the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state.

He's literally putting the US up there with ISIS, North Korea and Iran. That's stupid and hysterical.

Here's one from Harvey Weinstein which demonstrates it even better:

This is the only the country in the world where we don’t have healthcare. Countries embarrass us around the world. And this is the only country in the world, we don’t have gun law. I watched you, you know, talked about that.

You know, quite frankly it’s embarrassing. Obama was not embarrassing. The country is embarrassing.

You heard it right: the ONLY country in the world where we don't have healthcare and everyone else has it better so much that they "embarass" us. Let that sink in for a moment...

While I don't call universal healthcare a regressive position, this is a stupid claim to make in defense of it and it's regressive because it's more unfounded America bashing. America most certainly has healthcare and it's very good, it's just mostly in the private sector so you have to pay for it. That is off-set by the fact that taxes are lower than in other parts of the world and salaries are higher. Try getting quality healthcare on a Chinese salary for instance. Or African. Even some countries in the EU have significantly lower salaries and incomes and worse healthcare even though it's universal and the EU is supposed to be this first world power house. Pretty sure Bulgarians with degrees earn less than American janitors in terms of absolute dollars in their pocket. The cost of living may be higher but still, it's better to be able to earn more than less.

By comparison other countries do have universal healthcare but that doesn't mean the quality is top notch. He's basically saying that Zimbabwe has better healthcare than America solely on the fact that it's universal, even though the life expectancy is much lower and their so-called "universal" system is heavily lacking and doesn't have the ability to really treat serious illnesses. So congratulations, it's equal, but it's crap, hence why no American travels to Zimbabwe for healthcare. Why not? If it's a superior system, surely they would, they would be able to afford it. Even a janitor's salary from America makes you a king in Zimbabwe. A middle class Americans income - a rich guy in Zimbabwe.

See: http://www.our-africa.org/zimbabwe/poverty-healthcare

As I said these people live in a bubble and don't realize how much worse it is in other countries or they lie. It is not tu quoque because they themselves often makes these statements in comparison to other countries. I'm just pointing they're factually wrong and that maybe they should be a bit more grateful for what they have.

More here: http://leftofthemark.com/topic/america-bashing

That is fucking stupid. As is the concept of race.

Does that mean we agree that at least this segment of the left is regressive?

But I don't know why the concept of race would be stupid as long as you're not using it against people, that's silly. It's a description first of all. It's like pointing out that someone is blonde without any malice. Being able to describe someone's appearance accurately is important. Can you imagine a witness saying to the police: "I can't tell you what race the perpetrator is because race is a stupid concept and we should abandon it"?

It's also medically relevant, for example certain diseases affect whites more, others affect blacks more, others affect Native Americans more and so on. Remember, Native Americans for example didn't have the same immunities against diseases brought over from Europe.

http://www.cancercenter.com/testicular-cancer/risk-factors/

Caucasian men have a five times greater risk of developing testicular cancer than black men, and a three times greater risk compared with Asian-American or American Indian men. Hispanic/Latino men have a risk in between that of Caucasian and Asian-American men. In addition, testicular cancer occurs more frequently in the United States and Europe, and less often in Asia or Africa.

By the way, nobody is to blame for it, it's just nature being a bitch and worth knowing.

I'd like to see some of these before I comment on the matter, although I'll note that it is common knowledge that the further to the proverbial "right" one ventures, the closer to hate speech we invariably find; less so with their counterparts on the red team (simply due to the nature of the game).

Here's Milo Yiannopoulos getting banned from his own alma mater:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/breitbarts-milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-university-debate-about-censorship/

Here's an MRA speaker getting shouted down at a university with fire alarm pulled to disrupt the event by feminists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q

Here's conservative speaker Ben Shapiro banned from giving a speech on campus:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10830/breaking-video-depaul-university-threatens-arrest-amanda-prestigiacomo

Here's Braneis University banning Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/brandeis-ayaan-hirsi-ali_n_5127792.html

Whether you like them or not doesn't matter. I'm not an MRA for pretty much the reasons I'm not a feminist because it's full of divisive politics, but they should be welcomed for a debate and if they make a point it should be recognized.

Necessarily?

Scroll back up to that quote from the person who claimed that 1. American didn't have healthcare and 2. All other countries embarass the US because of that. They won't. Sorry. Most countries certainly do not and even the EU which is supposed to be this power house of the first world or something (LOL) has countries with evidently poorer healthcare such as Bulgaria, Romania and Poland.

Even by the ranking of the World Health Organization, which should be taken with a grain of salt, Australia, Denmark and Iceland, all 3 of which have a good perception internationally, rank below the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000

I don't think universal healthcare by itself is a regressive position to take. That's not why I call him a regressive. I call him a regressive because he singles out America and pretends it has the worst healthcare in the world against all evidence to the contrary.

Eh? Regressive and crazy aren't synonyms. At all. Please make it clearer what you mean to say and why you believe it, you're just being pointlessly antagonistic. The founder of this site once said, "if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas." Is it constructive to squirt as much invective into your sentences as you can squeeze out?

Feel free to expand on why you might disagree with universal health care, gun control and income equality, I'm interested in your conclusions and how they came about.

Well my disagreement with those positions really isn't that relevant to the topic, it's just a list of positions that I don't consider to be regressive leftist positions. Let's just say I can understand why someone would hold them and can view them as legitimate points of disagreement rather than laughable hypocritical bullshit I can dismiss outright.

Guaranteeing that nobody starves, nobody goes sick and so on through extensive government action - okay I get why people hold those views.

I don't however understand the bullshit, the sex baiting, the suppression of straight male sexuality, the racist double standards masked as equality, the crying wolf, the infantile temper tantrums over the most trivial of non-issues, the fervor against fascism in contrast with the whitewashing of the Islamic ideology, the one-sided America bashing. Not everyone on the left acts that way and not every regressive leftist holds all of these positions, some are more regressive than others.

May I have your criteria for "ridiculous" in this context? What are the generic standards that normally apply?

Expecting equality of outcome for once. I don't think that's realistic. People make different choices so they end up in different places in life.

People should have equal rights and opportunities, but it's their decision to make where they end up ultimately based on their abilities and interests. It doesn't concern me if Congress isn't 50% female, I have nothing against women being in politics but I'm not going to hold their hand in if they'd rather do something else. Quotas are silly. Anyone with the ability can go to school then go to political science and then get into politics if they appeal to the wishes of the people, 50% of which are also women and know how to get around and rise in ranks in a political party. Promoting women just for the sake of having women in politics is silly. Haven't these people ever considered that maybe women have other priorities and interest in life? Not every single inequality of outcome proves sexism.

I don't even know what this is. I mean, I understand the words, but I have no idea of its usage in common parlance and, taking its constituent parts as the basis for my understanding, I don't get the context in which you use it here.

This would help understand it better:
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

Notice that it's not on some fringe blog but a university site.

I will grant them that some of the things on the list are kinda silly to say, but hardly warrant making an issue out of, they strike me as something a very awkward person would say rather than a racist.

Here are the more hilarious examples of "racial microaggressions":

"When I look at you, I don’t see color."

This is literally the most anti-racist position one can take, but somehow it's racist to the regressives.

One thing that is suspiciously missing form the list is "cracker". It's all double standards. There are plenty of racists against whites in the US, but regressives are only concerned with white racists and they think it's common. It isn't. There is some racism but if a black person can be elected twice to be President, it's nowhere near as common.



There's this as well "2017 Resolution for White Guys":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBluYsydAVc - this is MTV by the way (mirrored) so hardly some fringe vlog with 3 views

In fact there's literally no shortage of these regressives that pretend to be anti-racist or anti-sexist and then find a way to bash white people or males or whatever. As I said, I strongly recommend looking over some of those channels I mentioned. Don't like Thunder00t no problem, he's not exactly the one with the most extensive collection of SJW clips. Sargon is a lot better equipped for that.

People sit in all manner of ways; I'm not sure why that's a thing to get annoyed about. It's incredible to me that it's a contentious issue, as in, why do you give a fuck about what they're moaning about?

Because it's annoying and makes them look hysterical?

If some guy is taking up two seats on the bus kindly ask him to step aside and make room so you can sit too, I don't see why this is a feminist issue. It's just dick move if they won't make room and it affects anyone in the bus, not just women.

Well the term rape culture is not a helpful one, I'll grant you, but I'm not blind to the perspectives (real or imagined) of my fellow human beings.

Have men traditionally dominated women? Yep.

Yep, they've also had greater responsibilities like going to war and some women actually expected them to be the absolute head of the family.

But it doesn't matter now, times have changed at least in the first world so now feminists are losing their jobs and have to make mountains of out mole hills, like Anita Sarkeesian is doing. As far as I'm concerned the only sexist policy left is that women aren't drafted. I much prefer a professional army but if the draft is a thing, then nobody should escape from it if they can physically fight and even if women are weaker on average, that's just the average, some women are stronger than the average man. At the very least if physically weak people can't fight they should support the war effort with money instead. Equal rights fine. Also equal responsibilities. I don't see how it is fair or equal that half the population can vote to go to war without being potentially subject to the draft themselves. Not saying there have to be 50% women in the draft, I'm just saying they shouldn't be immune from that responsibility just because they're women.

Has this manifested in cultural as well as physical domination*? Yessiree!

I guess but not sure how this third wave hysteria is supposed to help. I most certainly do not have "privilege" because some random guy somewhere raped a woman. In fact it hurts my pocket since that's another prisoner to feed for the next decade and plenty money wasted to get him a public defender. Not that I'm implying he shouldn't get one.

Did the advent of contraceptives give men a sense of entitlement...?

It doesn't seem to me like this would make any difference, humans were raping and pillaging before this.

What do you mean by entitlement by the way? Do you mean rape or do you mean that a lot of men are horny and have an urge to sleep with as many women as possible?

As long as they're not raping or assaulting women, I don't care what their fuck count is or even if they pay for it. Far too many feminists under the guise of "equality" seek to demonize standard male patterns of behavior.

That is by the way one area where men and women are definitely not equal in any meaningful sense and so equality of outcome is a stupid expectation. We have different sexual habits and different dating expectations. Men are more open to sleeping around. Women value commitment more as well as confident men. There are exceptions but the pattern is there and even when we allow people to be free and do what they want, we STILL see those patterns, so they're not just a "social construct" and trying to fight it is pointless and gets on people's nerves.

That's a weird thing. Acting like a twat (the UK jackass) is not only the purview of the oppressed. Anyone can do it in a free and open society. Is there a reason behind your umbrage? I haven't come across one yet, only that a couple of items of non-essential fluffery have annoyed you. Do you feel somehow impotent against a philosophical tide? Are you losing a war with them?

I think they have a very toxic influence on society. That is enough for me.

People rioted over the hysteria caused over Michael Brown. Cops have been shot because the regressive media has demonized them as abusive pricks. Maybe some are, but really there's no problem as long as you don't resist arrest or try to antagonize them. Compare the total number of arrests each year vs. how many people are shot and what their race is. It's a non-issue, just stop resisting, follow what the officers are telling you (don't like it take it up in court) and guaranteed 99.99999% you won't be shot or get beaten. People rioted over Trump's inauguration and burned cars, one owned by a Muslim by the way but they're supposed to be the defenders of Muslims somehow...

t's a bit late, but Americans should be constantly reminded of how their actions don't match their ideals, right?

[/quote]

I think you mean "didn't". That ship has sailed. In the regard at least, it's closer to what it should be.

They should be reminded, but not "constantly" and it shouldn't be portrayed as if other countries at the time didn't do similar or worse. Singling out your own country just creates a generation of brainwashed individuals who think America is the greatest evil on Earth. We shouldn't judge America in comparison to utopia but in comparison to what humans are capable of. By the standard, America was way ahead of its time, still is ahead of its time, its values unprecedented even if the people didn't always live up to those values. By comparison even Europe has had a much darker past than America from 1776 to today. Also it wasn't too long ago that certain African countries still had legal slavery. Mauritania still does, unofficially.

This is essentially gobbledegook. Your statute of limitations wouldn't apply in such a situation anyway, reparations wouldn't be received by those to whom it doesn't apply, and I have no idea why the amount of white people who owned slaves is relevant beyond some obtuse (for me) calculation to determine the size of payments. Payments made by a government, not individuals as I understand it.

Why are reparations an issue for you?

Because they're dwelling on the past. A very distant past and because it's divisive and not in any way practical.

Can I ask you to explain the morality of this? Thanks.

Because the son is not responsible for the father's actions perhaps?

Collective race blame, as you put it, already existed. What paved the way for white supremacists was loss of privilege. Happens all the time, although not often with that amount of venom.

Perhaps so why not break the cycle?

Don't you think it's a bit strange that the alt right is in the spotlight after 2 years of intense SJW propaganda? If leftists aren't serious about racism, then how can they convince racists to stop being racists?

We're all be equal. By the way, fuck whitey - How is this line of reasoning supposed to draw racists to your side and make them stop being racist when you yourself preach something you don't practice?

I don't believe the argument against reparations is inherently racist, but it is one that racists hold (obviously).

Why does it matter?

But yeah people can hold the right views for the wrong reasons. Nothing new here.

It would be up to you to argue it successfully without race being a factor (good luck!).

What do you mean without race being a factor? The whole policy itself is racist that's why I oppose it and yes the government would pay for it, but the government doesn't have any money of its own, they get it from taxing people or going deeper into debt.

I'm of the view that if you see everything as black and white (figuratively, metaphorically, and/or literally), you're a fucking idiot whose views can be dismissed.

This coming from someone who's going to claim a few comments below that all religions are the same...

Why is it only biology that matters in how we relate to each other? That's a rather shallow take, isn't it?

Because I'm being asked to pretend that something isn't what it evidently is.

Gender literally means "type". Who gives a fuck how other people classify themselves? Seeing as, for some reason, you do, isn't it better that they have clear identifiers so you don't mistakenly end up being attracted to one?

They can identify as whatever the want, you can claim you're from Venus but nobody's going to believe it because humans can't survive on Venus and there's no transportation from Venus to Earth suitable for humans. Male and female are descriptions of what you are, not how you feel. Aside from very rare genetic defects, you're born with either XY or XX chromosomes which determine whether you're male or female. You can claim to be something else or make up a 3rd option that doesn't exist in human biology, but your DNA betrays you.

At the very least make an effort if you want to pass off as the other sex in a credible way. Get hormones, chop off your whatever, get implants and maybe then I'll take such claims more seriously.

If it makes you feel good to proclaim yourself the Emperor of the World, do it, but I didn't vote for you. You're no Emperor to me, real or symbolic.

I think that's somewhat extreme, but fewer aggressive (and regressive) "male" pastimes might help.

So do you agree that portion of the left can be described as regressive?

I agree that she's not sincere, but that's by design; politicians are trained to lie, whether to convincingly toe a party line, or to save face. You're correct that actions speak louder than words, which is why the rest of the world can't fathom why you've elected Donald Trump.

Mainly cause the current trajectory of the "war on terror" has failed and we're no closer to solving the problem than in 2001, because many people lost their jobs to bad trade deals which Hillary was in favor of, because he wanted to secure the border and because he's virtually immune to political correctness and he can make a good counter-punch to the ramblings of far left millennials. The economy could use a breath of fresh air too with lower taxes and regulations, no wonder those jobs left with the 35% corporate tax, that's a bit excessive.

She's right. Salafis are non-aggressive to the point of indolence. The creation of Jihadis lies at your door. Also Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, but he's dead

What the hell do you even mean by "Salafis are non-aggressive", they're some of the worst offenders.

If you wanna know, most neo-nazis aren't aggressive either, most communists are not aggressive, as in they're not just going to outright attack people on the streets like crazy savages, they play the long game of subversion first building up support and then maybe getting increasingly more violent, but that doesn't mean their ideology is peaceful.

The statement that "Muslims are tolerant peaceful people" is at least half a lie because there are clearly not enough "tolerant peaceful" Muslims needed to create free countries. There are plenty of freedom indexes you can google and polls done to examine Muslim attitudes. There is some moderation, but don't kid yourself, it's not nearly as prevalent as Hillary wants you to believe and they're powerless to rein in the radicals. The recent failed coup attempt in Turkey should also worry you. This was one of the more moderate ones as well as a NATO ally but it's slowly becoming radicalized. If I was Trump, I would ask my staff to look into the possibility of kicking it out of NATO at this point, especially after they almost started a war with Russia. We don't need that.

The other statement that Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism is a complete lie. What are ISIS then? Buddhists? Atheists pretending to be Muslim?

No more so than claiming the same for Christians.

If you can find me a network of Christian terrorists that is just as numerous (number of recruits), just as widespread, global (local conflicts 5000 miles away with no implications on NATO countries do not concern me) and just as deadly and which has the capability of recruiting internationally, drawing Christians from all nations to their ranks and which millions of Christians have sympathy towards even if they're not involved, I'd be interested to look into it.

But I'll save you the trouble and tell you right now, it doesn't exist.

You've read the Koran?

Yes.

Again, most religions want theocratic states of some form, fundamentally.

I thought you said you were against black and white thinking. Can't you talk about religions on a case by case basis? Besides how does this change the fact that the regressives are making excuses for an illiberal ideology? Now you're using the same fallacy you accused me of using.

As are other religions like Christianity. Some denominations more than others, just like Islam. It's odd how you're arguing that small factions of one represent the entirety in the latter case.

Some get too radical but nothing on the scale of 9/11 or the global jihad in general and there's nothing comparable in the Bible if you take into account the context and make a distinction between what Christians are supposed to do and what ancient Israelis used to be commanded to do.

He_who_is_nobody posted some statistics trying to argue that it's equal and even by his own skewed numbers, Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism in the US. I'm sure you've seen that other thread no need to repeat it.

Not really. Wahhabis, sure, but that's also the case for many Evangelicals.

So let me get this straight, all religions are bad and they're all equal, but not all subsets of a religion are equal? Rrrrright. Consistency issues. Fix them. You don't have any basis to claim that two religions with two different sets of tenets produce equal results. You have to take it case by case.

Wahhabis are just the most radical of the Hanbali Sunnis who are also radical by American standards, but that that doesn't mean the rest is moderate (do you really think I care that some sects treat non-Muslims or women marginally better than others when they're still regressive by American standards?), there's never been a Sunni Islam that didn't have strong political implications, what people don't seem to understand is that it's a religion and a way of structuring society with a government. The Shia Islam practiced in Iran is radical and it's not even Sunni, let alone Wahhabi. Stop using Wahhabism as a convenient scapegoat, Islam had issues way before Wahhabism even existed and they haven't been fixed.

Don't know much about Alewites but since their numbers don't even register on the radar, it doesn't make a difference either way. The vast super majority of the Islamic faith is definitely radical and un-American and you only get the appearance of moderation because some Muslims are ignorant of their faith or like to pursue their own desires instead. Maybe that works in the short term, but it's only a matter of time until another of them becomes more "spiritual" and either starts killing infidels or, if he's a "moderate" extremist starts trying to form a 5th column and play the long game of subversion, kind of like the Trojan horse but even more insidious, or doing vigilante "Muslim patrols". We don't need that.

I don't believe that's the case, as I understand it they argue for the freedom to worship using whatever you like. Your framing tools are broken.

That may be the case but advocating for freedom to worship and whitewashing the faith aren't quite the same things.

Here's a typical regressive article from the Huffington Post called "Muhammad was a feminist", and no he wasn't, he wanted men to have control over women both in the private life and in legal matters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/muhammad-was-a-feminist_b_12638112.html

For that matter, feminism should not be conflated with support for equal rights. The dichotomy between feminist and sexism is a false one and many feminists are regressive sexists against men, like the morons who attacked Matt Taylor for a non-issue shirt or who insist that women should get to speak first and men should just shut up and be good little "allies" with no original thought of their own.

Besides shouldn't the right to practice a religion come with the responsibility to not go against the social order? Last time I checked (and I'll admit this is my own take on the first amendment) FREE exercise of religion is protected, not ALL exercise of religion, which implies that you have to respect the rights of others and not to conspire to take them away.

What solution would I take, I don't know, I'm not a statesman and I'm not paid to come up with solutions but simply pretending everything is okay won't do anything. Although Trump's promise to establish a Commission on Radical Islam and limit immigration from terrorist safe havens and countries the US is at war with sounds like a good start. If immigrants are needed, PLENTY of other countries to choose from that are friendlier to the US, when options are plentiful, you can afford to be highly selective.

I hate to point this out by the way but you seem to be whitewashing communism. That's also a very anti-liberty ideology since it denies all property rights and doesn't recognize any individuality, it's all for the collective, and in practice has always lead to tyranny and poverty. The Soviet Union wouldn't have been anywhere near as brutal without communism, in fact it probably wouldn't even be the Soviet Union, just Russia.

Eh? That's simply fantasy.

I'm not following.

Truth can be spun, everyone knows this. Perhaps fewer more than your current president. All Western societies are broken at the moment, but it isn't Muslims that are to blame, it's rampant and increasingly unhinged neoliberalism. They're pointing at the strange brown people while lifting your wallet.

Oh great you're starting to show your true colors. Islam is not brown people, brown people are not Islam and there are many different types of "brown people" to such an extent that I'm not even sure it's a useful term. Are we talking about Arab or Indian or Native American or someone else? None of those groups can be conflated with Islam either FYI. It's an ideology and it's a choice. And US leaders certainly aren't pointing the finger at anyone, they're actually making excuses, just like in Europe. Except Trump anyway, at least he knows Islamic terrorism is derived from the Islamic faith.

I don't recall anyone ever arguing that Islam or Muslims created all the problems and that would be stupid, but Islamic terrorism is not a small problem. Need I remind you that ISIS controls territory about the size of Britain? They've literally taken over half of two countries.

I would love to hear your solution to this problem from the paradigm of Bush, Obama and Hillary that Islamic terrorism has little or nothing to do with Islam. We've tried that for years and it didn't work and just like the trans issue, nothing good can come out of denial of the obvious.

Why is it stupid? It's true, for the most part. Those aren't generally considered (or reported) to be regular experiences of white people.

Not really there are plenty of poor white people, plenty of white people living in bad neighborhoods, plenty of white people getting carjacked, and yes plenty of white people shot by the police for being stupid and resisting arrest. (Can't say I care much about the last part, they shouldn't have resisted either.)

So if Bernie wants to represent poor people he would be wise to focus more on that rather than to talk in such a divisive manner.

Not much different to the language you used at the beginning of this post.

I don't recall attacking a race because of some election results so no, I'm nothing like her.

Yaaah... A fucking lot of Americans said exactly those things. On this forum too, if I recall. You're revising history if you think otherwise, chum

How are these leftists any better then? The whole point is that they've gone so far left they're turned into self-righteous hypocrites who seem to prefer bashing whitey than actually combating racism in a fair manner, on all fronts.

Even if it affects blacks, Latinos, Native more because they're the minority, it doesn't mean that people in those groups cannot be racist towards whites.

For that matter notice how passive much of the media was when a white disabled person was kidnapped by 4 racist blacks who were shouting "fuck white people fuck Donald Trump". If the races were reversed there would have been riots.

You haven't really defined why any of your positions are, or should be considered, rational.

In what sense are any of these people I'm quoting rational? It is perfectly rational to oppose their childish tantrums, especially when they seem to be getting louder each year.

You haven't convinced me they're crazies so I won't answer that at the moment.

I've given you plenty of quotes you can comment on and plenty more to find if you follow those other sources. Thunderf00t okay he's not the most important anyway, check the others. You can't possibly think these people are right in the head.

"Fuck you white America" Really? This is an acceptable way to talk for someone who claims to be anti-racist?

A shirt is sexist? Come on.

America has the worst healthcare? Not by a long shot, buddy.

Only whites can be racist? Nope.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

He_who_is_nobody posted some statistics trying to argue that it's equal and even by his own skewed numbers, Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of terrorism in the US. I'm sure you've seen that other thread no need to repeat it.

I never posted any statistics about terrorism in the U.S. and who is committing it. I would not do that, because I have not researched that topic.

 

[Tree]

You're right about that, I was thinking of Nesslig20. My apologies. I talked about his statistics in that other thread though, you can check again.

 

[Dustnite]

I agree a lot with what Prole said so I'll just summarize what I think of the "regressive left" issue.

I think the term is overused. I think it has become so overused that it has reached pejorative level to apply to anyone considering a liberal position on any topic. Not only is that unfair, but generally leads to the conversation/argument being usurped towards the perceived "conservative persecution" in media and reality.

I have real concerns when people say that criticizing Islam is off limits when I would level similar criticisms toward Christianity or Judaism. I have real concerns when there is talk of censoring others because you find them too offensive. If we find something offensive or we wish to criticize something, we should be allowed to voice that opinion and others are free to ignore it or engage it. This is the essence of free speech.

What I find alarming is the tendency for my fellow Americans to draw the dividing line on whatever side they have picked and then shut themselves off to any other opinion once they have done so. We should be able to identify when the whole truth isn't being spoken and we should be able to reasonably discern if something is true or false. Unfortunately, due to the state of media and education in the country and literally the amount of time it takes to unpack a single false statement uttered by anyone in power it's becoming increasingly difficult to have a nuanced conversation with anyone ESPECIALLY regarding politics.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I agree a lot with what Prole said so I'll just summarize what I think of the "regressive left" issue.

I think the term is overused. I think it has become so overused that it has reached pejorative level to apply to anyone considering a liberal position on any topic. Not only is that unfair, but generally leads to the conversation/argument being usurped towards the perceived "conservative persecution" in media and reality.

I think it is hilarious that it is used by people that support Trump. A man that has appointed YEC, climate change deniers, anti-choicers, and anti-gay rights picks to his cabinet and who campaigned on "opening up" the libel laws, is anti-vax, and embraced eminent domain as a great thing. It seems very Orwellian to me.

 

[MarsCydonia]

think the term is overused. I think it has become so overused that it has reached pejorative level to apply to anyone considering a liberal position on any topic. Not only is that unfair, but generally leads to the conversation/argument being usurped towards the perceived "conservative persecution" in media and reality.

Which is ironic since one the complaints I have often seen from the CLASSICAL LIBERALS(tm)/internet conservatives is this:

"Racism" and "sexism" have lost all meaning now and are just weapons used by the left to shut down anything they disagree with"

Yet they don't seem to grasp that the same criticism can be applied to their preferred terms: "SJW", "Regressive Left", etc.

The term "SJW" is almost never applied positively and is virtually always used only to discredit the person rather than their points. Why bother calling someone an SJW when you can call them wrong?

 

[Laurens]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

I particularly enjoy when the "alt right" get triggered. All you need to do is make a film or television adaptation of something and change the ethnicity of one of the characters. The whiney snowflakes go nuts.

In seriousness political discourse is heavily divided at the moment which is troubling to me. Everyone is concerned about what other people say and starting arguments on the internet over pointless things. Meanwhile the super rich continue to exploit the masses at the expense of our planet which is fucking dying.

 

[australopithecus]

The alt-right (see: Nazis) and so-called SJWs are two sides of the same idiot coin. Perpetually offended crybabies, whining because the world doesn't conform to the myopic parameters they believe it should. Extremes of any ideology are to be soundly mocked.

"X white celeb wore dreadlocks! Cultural appropriation! Waaaah! Outrage!!"

"X fictional character was cast as a POC instead of the original white guy! White genocide! Snowflakes! Waaaaah!"

"Non-native American said "spirit animal"! Waaaaah! Offended!!"

"Transgender people can use toilets! Waaaah! Collapse of society!!! Waaaaaaaaah!!!"

Christ, our species has jumped the shark.

 

[Visaki]

Re: The

I particularly enjoy when the "alt right" get triggered. All you need to do is make a film or television adaptation of something and change the ethnicity of one of the characters. The whiney snowflakes go nuts.

Or make an ethnic character white, that'll trigger half of the internets it seems. The new Ghost in the Shell case in point. As the green glowing primate said, it's different sides of the same coin. Both are a bunch of whiny cheeseballs that should learn that if it's ok for you to do it, it must be ok for the otherside to do it too.

 

[australopithecus]

Green??!! How dare you?! Yellow, Sir.

 

[Laurens]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

I particularly enjoy when the "alt right" get triggered. All you need to do is make a film or television adaptation of something and change the ethnicity of one of the characters. The whiney snowflakes go nuts.

Or make an ethnic character white, that'll trigger half of the internets it seems. The new Ghost in the Shell case in point. As the green glowing primate said, it's different sides of the same coin. Both are a bunch of whiny cheeseballs that should learn that if it's ok for you to do it, it must be ok for the otherside to do it too.

People invest too much energy in complaining about stuff that offends them. The internet has just allowed everyone else to be privy to it. Whether on the right or left of the political spectrum wanting to silence or remove something from the public sphere because it is or might be offensive makes you an authoritarian. I don't have time for authoritarianism.

 

[ldmitruk]

Re: The

I particularly enjoy when the "alt right" get triggered. All you need to do is make a film or television adaptation of something and change the ethnicity of one of the characters. The whiney snowflakes go nuts.

Or make an ethnic character white, that'll trigger half of the internets it seems. The new Ghost in the Shell case in point. As the green glowing primate said, it's different sides of the same coin. Both are a bunch of whiny cheeseballs that should learn that if it's ok for you to do it, it must be ok for the otherside to do it too.

A production of Othello was canceled here in Edmonton after a white woman was cast as Othello. Rather unfortunate I think.

 

[Dustnite]

Re: The

Or make an ethnic character white, that'll trigger half of the internets it seems. The new Ghost in the Shell case in point. As the green glowing primate said, it's different sides of the same coin. Both are a bunch of whiny cheeseballs that should learn that if it's ok for you to do it, it must be ok for the otherside to do it too.

The Gunslinger in the new Dark Tower movie is black. Idris Elba is playing Roland Deschain. Just go on the imdb boards and see the shit people are talking there...

 

[Visaki]

Re: The

The Gunslinger in the new Dark Tower movie is black. Idris Elba is playing Roland Deschain. Just go on the imdb boards and see the shit people are talking there...

Though I have a feeling that the "white washing" mainly gets more main stream attention. On a more positive side: Idris Elba is playing Roland Deschain!

Personally I have take these things on case by case basis. For example I have no problem Idris Elba playing Deschain (I'm not a King or Dark Tower fan so there's that), but him playing James Bond might be another matter since I feel that Bond being white is a long standing tradition and a part of the character and one should not change that just because. And for Doctor Who (since Capaldi announced he's leaving the show after the christmas special this year)? Well just have a good storyline reason if you want a non-white and/or non-male doctor and cast a good actor (Idris Elba, again ) and I'll be fine with it.

Main problem with all this for me is the people who yell and shout when a character is changed from white to ethnic or ethnic to white, but make rationalizations why the other way is actually a good thing.

Green??!! How dare you?! Yellow, Sir.

Green, yellow, what's the difference? About 20 nm, that's what. (I confused you with Prole, and one can't see avatars on the Topic review.)

 

[Laurens]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

Fictional characters are subject to change and interpretation. People need to accept that. I mean look at Jesus for example...

 

[Dustnite]

Re: The

Fictional characters are subject to change and interpretation. People need to accept that. I mean look at Jesus for example...

[sarcasm]ARE YOU SAYING THAT JESUS CAN BE BROWN!?!?!?![/sarcasm]

 

[Laurens]

Re: The "regressive left" and other sundry items.

Fictional characters are subject to change and interpretation. People need to accept that. I mean look at Jesus for example...

[sarcasm]ARE YOU SAYING THAT JESUS CAN BE BROWN!?!?!?![/sarcasm]

Jesus can be whatever you want him to be for the right price

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: The

[sarcasm]ARE YOU SAYING THAT JESUS CAN BE BROWN!?!?!?![/sarcasm]

Jesus can be whatever you want him to be for the right price