Prolescum
New Member
Original topic: here
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.
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?
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.
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.
That is fucking stupid. As is the concept of race.
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.
Necessarily?
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.
May I have your criteria for "ridiculous" in this context? What are the generic standards that normally apply?
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 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.
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?
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...?
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?
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.
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?
Can I ask you to explain the morality of this? Thanks.
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.
Your reductive argument here has no real merit. It's not logical either. Apples are not oranges.
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.
Why is it only biology that matters in how we relate to each other? That's a rather shallow take, isn't it?
Then don't shag them.
Quite.
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 think that's somewhat extreme, but fewer aggressive (and regressive) "male" pastimes might help.
Languages are living or they are dead, I'd rather the one we share continue indefinitely. It has some great characteristics.
I think she's fucking horrible, but then there are very few politicians who are otherwise.
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.
Americans love giving (and receiving) risibly simple solutions for complex problems. It is not surprising that you're all split up into focus groups.
Which is precisely what your post here consists of. Isn't that weird?
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:
No more so than claiming the same for Christians.
You've read the Koran?
Again, most religions want theocratic states of some form, fundamentally.
Agreed. Some books are shit. Robert Heinlein, I'm looking at you.
I have to some extent. It's fucking boring and stupid. As is the Bible, which I've read more than once.
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.
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.
Not really. Wahhabis, sure, but that's also the case for many Evangelicals.
People are trained to dislike other people. Film at 11?
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.
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.
I ask that you take the plank out of your eye before you complain about the splinters others have in theirs.
Why is it a war? Is that really the only option?
Eh? That's simply fantasy.
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.
...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.
You (the royal you) wouldn't listen if she tried. Not that she would as she understands the nature of your political discourse.
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 much different to the language you used at the beginning of this post.
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
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.
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.
I'd like to know what you mean, as I noted previously, before I address the topic head-on.
The two are not necessarily the same, and I don't think it's wise to lump them together.
You haven't convinced me they're crazies so I won't answer that at the moment.
Tree said: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.
I can't be arsed with this bit.Here is another regressive getting triggered and crying wolf about "sexual harassment" because someone said to her "My name is Hugh Mungus".
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.