Conservatives may not do it as often but I do think trying to silence the nations' leading infectious disease expert during the deadliest pandemic in a century is way worse than any kind of "thought police" the left engages in.
If you need an expert to explain common sense to you then that’s a sign of blatant stupidity.
But back to the original point. Of course it’s wrong Fauci is getting the “cancel culture” treatment but again that’s only one example and him being an expert doesn’t make it more significant than the more numerous examples of the far left canceling people just for not being PC.
Of course he isn't but that doesn't mean that the stakes aren't way higher here than any kind of "cancel culture" the left has engaged in (even if you lumped all those incidences together).
And the idea that people trying to de-platform people they don't agree with on social media sites has the potential to impact more lives than the leading epidemiologist receiving death threats (an illegal means of trying to silence someone) in the midst of the deadliest pandemic in a century is yours.
And right wingers frequently assault people for saying things that aren't "Patriotically Correct" but you're not complaining either. In fact right wingers assaulted anti-lock down counter protesters for arguing that the lock-down was necessary to fight the virus (you know, a view that is scientifically correct). Are you really this desperate to push the narrative of the "censorious left"?
No but we're not going to sit here and pretend that trying to get political commentators de-platformed is a bigger problem than the leading epidemiologist getting death threats in the midst of a pandemic.
As for which side is worse when it comes to politically motivated violence as a whole, we've known that for a long time: www.typeinvestigations.org/.../
Niether do most left wingers. Now back to the issue of cancel culture. What happened to Fauci isn't the only issue. Did you forget about how a bunch of Jewish journalists got (((echoed))) in 2016 for speaking out against Trump?
Which also came with threats and harassment. You are within your first amendment right to request that a social media company not give someone a platform and refuse to do business with them or anyone who runs adds on their site. You are not within your first amendment right to threaten someone for voicing an opinion that you don't like.
Actually I didn't claim that you said it was "OK" to threaten people, I said it was worse than boycotting platforms that give a voice that you don't agree with. Oh the irony, your straw-man accusation is a straw-man.
Oh and now I'm supposed to mention every incident of egregious behavior committed by the left or I'm a hypocrite? How many times have you complained about the rioting committed by BLM and failed to acknowledge BLM activists murdered?
Now you're pulling Red Herrings on top of straw-men.
People receiving death threats for what they say is very relevant to cancel culture, that someone didn't point out every egregious act committed by their side is a distraction (i. e. a red-herring). So now you're projecting as well.
That point was that the right employs more despicable means to enact cancer culture like using holocaust references to threaten Jewish reporters, not that everyone on the right is a Nazi so again you're misusing fallacies (i. e. senselessly rambling).
Actually there were many instances of reporters getting threatened for Anti-Trump views. But I could say that about your complaints about "cancel culture" in general.
What happens is you show that cancel culture is at least as common among conservatives as it is among "the social justice crowd" but going back to my original post, the stakes involved in conservative cancel culture are way higher.
No but I'll tell you that knit picking doesn't make your case. Now you could say that about the threats that Fauci faced are knit picking to but given his position and the current situation, that's like saying I'm knit picking one example of which terrorist organization commits the worst attacks when said attack was done with a nuclear weapon.
Now let me guess: you're going to cry "false equivalence" -_- But it's not, the point that scale matters is valid in either case.
Oh please, saying that because I didn't mention X attack by the left is just a pathetic attempt to contrive hypocrisy. It's just a shallow tu quo que because you're so desperate to push the narrative of the censorious left controlled by the SocJus/Social liberal/Cultural Marxist boogeyman.
But here's another example of my knit picking: I think the greatest perpetrators of terrorism in the US in 2001 were Islamic extremists because I'm knit picking the World Trade Center attacks.
Except that it’s a self evident fact that the mainstream media has an anti right wing bias, considering that right wingers are always depicted in negative stereotypical manners.
Here’s a rhetorical question. Who has more power, those that have the most influence in the mainstream media or those few far right extremist whackos?
No set of statistics are going to incorporate all factors (that's a throw-away argument on your part) and polarization isn't synonymous with extremism but there is a correlation (which is why we see more politically motivated killings committed by the right).
If the average position of the members of a political party move further to the right, there will be more people falling into the right wing extremist category; that's pretty basic math.
Again, no it';s just wherever the line was drawn for what would be considered "right wing extremist", if the average position of a party moves further to the right, the more people within that party will cross that threshold.
Usually, not always and environmental negligence is an extreme position to take because the consequences are severe (look what removing the regulation prohibiting the selling of endangered species in wet markets did).
Both global warming and the origin of the virus in wet-market from a hybridized bat/pangolin pathogen are widely accepted by climatologists and epidemiologists.
Wow, I didn’t think you’d stoop so low but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The elephant in the room that isn’t brought up is how the Japanese-American internment happened under a social democrat‘: administration who your side of the political spectrum considers to be some sort of “hero”. And really, you are using something Takei said as an argument? Seriously?
Immigration centers have actually been around since the 1970s so to assume they are an invention of Trump is pretty ignorant. Does that make them right, absolutely not considering there are many human rights issues with those centers. But the real criticism should be directed at Trump’s poor handling of this already existing protocol.
Most people are aware that FDR was a Social Democrat and he ordered the internment of the Japanese. But there isn't just one elephant in the room; there is a whole herd and while you might nit pick one of them (that FDR was a Social Democrat) you're ignoring the matriarch (there was a war going on). Does that justify his actions? No but it does make ascribing his decision to his position on the political spectrum and unsupportable conclusion. You want to give the Republicans credit for passing the restitution bill (even though most voted against it), listen to what Reagan said at 1:20
But none the less it was an extreme response and no, he didn't invent them but he did expand them all the while the number of undocumented migrants in the country went down under the same rate as Obama so it's not like we suddenly faced an immigration crisis that provoked Trumps' policy.
You literally cherry picked a part of the video. Not once did he try to justify the Japanese-American internment in the video or ever. You like to claim that most republican politicians did not approve of the bill but you fail to acknowledge that the Japanese internment was primarily restricted to the West Coast ( considering that only 13% of the US population blatantly advocated genocide of the Japanese and most anti Japanese incidents happened on the West Coast.
Adding in new protocols on a already existing faulty system isn’t extremist it’s negligence. If Trump were to advocate the deportation of every ethnic minority in the country then that would be extremist.
I'm not "knit picking" your straw-manning. He said it was the wrong thing to do but it wasn't for us to judge those who made the decision in the time of peril, not that it was justified. No kidding it was all on the West coast; that's where an attack by the Imperial Japanese military was most likely to happen (there's another elephant in the room that you're ignoring in your vain attempts to make the left look as bad/worse than the right when it comes to discrimination). And deporting minorities is where you draw the line for what would be considered "extremist"? Really?
1.) He’s discouraging hindsight bias and it’s still knit picking on your part or rather you subtly trying to justify the internment camps.
2.) Yet you ignore the fact it was a deliberate rounding up of loyal citizens based on their race. Not to mention the one drop rule was considered as well. Yeah you’re definitely trying to justify the internment.
3.) Deporting minorities despite being citizens falls into the category of extremism. Much like how rounding up loyal citizens is extremist.
If I was trying to "justify" the internment I wouldn't have compared it to a policy that I oppose in the first place. Saying that FDRs' decision was based on the fact that the US was at war versus his political views isn't "subtly justifying it". And no shit deporting a minority would be extremist, but the point is that there are plenty of other actions that could be considered extremist.
You saying I'm trying to justify it is just projection on your part. I could just as easily say you ascribing the issues in the detention centers to negligence is you trying to justify it. The difference of course that one injustice is still ongoing (not saying the past doesn't matter, just that what's happening now is more relevant).
You went from talking about Fauci to mudslinging the right wing.
And criticism of certain media sources isn’t whining, it doesn’t matter how “prestigious” a media source is, that doesn’t make it exempt from criticism.
I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture). And criticizing the media is one thing but pushing executive orders to control them is another issue entirely. And yet "classical liberals" and the "new center" keep saying the left is way worse when it comes to Orwellian measures.
“ I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture).”
You’ve got to listen to both sides before making such bold statements that hold little substance due to exaggeration. conservativeleaders4ed.org/.../
“ And criticizing the media is one thing but pushing executive orders to control them is another issue entirely.
You are still acting as if Trump speaks for the entire right wing as a whole. Last I checked, his executive order to combat online censorship is not actually enforceable; it only looks good on paper. If he wants to make it enforceable he would have to revise the first amendment and make the first amendment stronger, which isn’t happening.
“ And yet "classical liberals" and the "new center" keep saying the left is way worse when it comes to Orwellian measures”
At least the moderates aren’t trying to de platform those they disagree with. Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by many left wing groups.
1. What do conservative views on K-12 education have to do with this? 2. Even though he was stopped, he still tried to run afoul of the first amendment (ironically while claiming to be fighting censorship). 3. Yeah, the left are the hypocritical ones when the "classical liberals" and "new center" claim to be impartial but overwhelmingly bash the left even though it's demonstrable that the Republicans have been drifting further to the right all the while claiming "impartiality" because they have their head stuck down the anti SJW rabbit hole. What a load.
1) Where did I bring it up? 2) "Online censorship" would be an corporate internet giant hacking and/or disabling someone's own website. What the orders were against was de-platforming. 3) More things they do are brought to light by social media but we know that of the two parties, the Republicans are becoming more extreme. Are you really still hiding behind the facade of impartiality?
1.) “ I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture).”
2.) Don’t you think de platforming is a form of censorship?
3.) Again, you seem to think that being more critical is a form of “extremism”. It’s not that I’m impartial it’s that I’m neither democrat or republican. Being impartial to politics is a synonym for being apolitical which most people aren’t considering that most people have opinions on political matters.
1) I meant public *information sources 2) If I don't let someone put a Trump bumper sticker on my vehicle, am I censoring them? 3) You repeatedly stated "you don't have a dog in this fight" but if I recall, you're part of an extremist right-wing ideology:
1.) Again, you are nitpicking Trump while ignoring the fact that he isn’t the only right winger out there.
2.) That’s your personal property, so no that’s not censorship. While social media is used by the public. For someone who likes to advocate change in a system, you don’t seem too eager when the change comes from someone with opposing views.
2.) Between Democrat and republican. I do have my own political views but I don’t consider myself either democrat or republican. And are you seriously citing propaganda from a anarchist as a credible source?
1) Given that he was voted to represent them, it's hardly knit picking.
2) If I make my own website, it doesn't give people the right to use it to spread your message and to decide who I do and don't give a platform to is my freedom of speech so I don't like changes that run afoul of the freedom of speech by anyone (no matter their political affiliation).
1) Neither does all the cancel culture SJWs but many still hold the same views on the topic.
2) I wouldn't but don't pretend that being denied a platform is censorship.
3) It's tearing down the facade of "freedom" the "libertarian" party has concocted; you're taking power away from the public sphere (government) and giving it to private unaccountable organizations.
1.) The fact SJWs share the same views on a topic makes them a group think
2.) It is a unwritten form of censorship.
3.) sounds like more communist propaganda. Considering that’s not what libertarians want, what libertarians actually want is to minimize the authoritarian power of the government not redistribute the power to individual organizations. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
1) Just like many conservatives have the same mind-set.
2) It's unwritten and a not a form of censorship at all.
3) "Libertarian" capitalists (more accurately described as propretarianists) want the government to act as a means to enforce what power corporations have under the guise of "freedom of contract": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsfV9GewvF8
1.) Agreeing on certain topics and being sycophantic are two different things.
2.) Just cause it’s not written doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. De-platforming based on censorship is the equivalent of breaking a norm, even though it’s not illegal it will still attract outrage.
3.) Are you seriously using some leftist “comedian’s” debate a with one libertarian politician as affirmation of your own biases?
3) That the "freedom of contract" is an oxymoron is a fact no matter who claims it (again, you're attacking the bias to deflect the argument off the issue). And the only reason you think that proprietarianism ('libertarian' capitalism') advocates individual liberty is your bias makes you see the issue from the perspective of "negative rights" when positive rights are needed to protect individual liberty as well. Without them, the vast majority of the population lives at the mercy of corporations.
Well, at least we know why you talk about "proto-totalitarian ideologies" so much: you don't want them cutting in on your action. They want to dominate people's lives? Bullshit that's what you see as your fucking job.
2.) But he didn’t and he doesn’t speak for everyone that is on the right side of the political spectrum. Social media sites can de platform anyone they like but if the people start to boycott those social media websites then those social media websites can’t complain since they provoked the boycott.
3.) And the left’s “equality” is an oxymoron. What you are describing is anarchism, which the libertarians are not. What libertarians tend to support is a night-watchman state, not anarchy.
“ Well, at least we know why you talk about "proto-totalitarian ideologies" so much: you don't want them cutting in on your action. They want to dominate people's lives? Bullshit that's what you see as your fucking job.”
2) He speaks for more people on the right than do SJWs do for the left.
3) Acting as a night watchman is only enforcing negative rights, not positive ones so I'm not conflating it with anarchy and what I'm saying that you talking constantly about "proto totalitarian groupthink" when you subscribe to a totalitarian idea is just projection.
1.) Are you seriously trying to defend SJWs which are a group of extremists? That’s like trying to defend neo Nazism.
2.) No he doesn’t, he only speaks for some.
3.) A limited government isn’t referring to only negative rights.
4.) More mudslinging but then again to you anyone on the right somehow advocates “totalitarianism”. Last I checked the right aren’t the ones trying to rescind the second amendment, ban religion, control the entertainment/arts or enforce newspeak.
1) SJWs are no where near as extreme as Nazis; a better comparison would be with the Republican party because at the RNC they used the same kind of BS SJWs did.
2) He speaks for the majority of them which is why they elected him. And he still speaks for more people on the right than SJWs do for people on the left.
3) No kidding, the Libertarian limited government would enforce negative rights but take away positive rights (social security, funding for education, healthcare, minimum wages, workers protection etc...).
4) There are elements of the right who want to restrict the first amendment (including the one in office) and the one before him tried to force religion into the public sphere and has used the war on drugs as an excuse to get private prisons big bucks. But saying that certain elements of the right are totalitarian (like fascists and 'libertarians') isn't saying that everyone on the right is totalitarian. So pretty much everything faux centrists claim the SJWs are doing, the RNC has been doing at least a decade before anyone ever heard of an SJW.
Also the right expanded the military even if the ideology you subscribe to advocates a smaller military budget. But I doubt most 'libertarians' would have an issue with corporations raising private paramilitaries.
Except I'm not saying military power isn't necessary, I'm saying our military budget is overblown and that Eisenhower warned against defense contractors getting too much influence (which given our military budget relative to our GDP when compared to other countries) they have obtained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3KFBXQI2E
The notion that we spend so much because we've assumed responsibility is utter tosh because many of our allies in the regions mentioned in that article have way higher military budgets than other countries in their regions and our soldiers cost more? OK lets' downsize the number of personal we have to really emphasize quality over quantity.
Does how much they pay us come close to breaking even so our per GDP budget is comparable to other countries? Doubt it. And arguing that we need to have a strong military but should bear arms to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical (with said military) is contradictory.
Did you not see the statistics showing that even with the gap in spending, the military strength of the US when compared it’s rivals is not much different?
The idea of the right to bear arms nowadays is strictly for self defense and hunting.
1) I've seen slippery slopes but saying that if we have a budget twice versus for times that of our enemy we'll be fighting with sling shots is ridiculous.
2) That the person the right elected to represent them is more representative of them than a few internet personalities are of the left is "anti-right propaganda"? Are you that blinded by your partisan bias?
2) I said "That the person the right elected to represent them is more representative of them than a few internet personalities are of the left is "anti-right propaganda"? Are you that blinded by your partisan bias?" then you asked if he would represent the left so you were hinting at it. But he would be more representative than the SJWs.
The point is that you think Trump speaks for everyone that is right wing. Which brings up the hypothetical rhetorical question that if Biden wins in November, would he be speaking on behalf of the left wing as a whole.
Your making a straw man again. I didn't say that he is completely representative of the right, just that he's more representative of the right than the SJWs are of the left.
As there has always been radicals on the left but given that the data shows that they right has been getting more radical; this whole perception of the left becoming more radical is just an artifact of people getting more voices through social media.
Yeah, because seeing a bunch of whiners on line is more indicative of which side is "radicalizing" than the political actions of elected officials in your view; OK -_-
See, I didn't actually make that claim that the Right does pander to "alt-Right" and you can find plenty of incidences of people on the left denouncing SJWs & Antifa. The point is that now you're asserting anecdotal claims because you're desperate to hold on to the narrative that the left has become more radicalized and intolerant than the right.
The difference here is that the acedotal example holds way more significance than the narrative you are trying promote of the right somehow being one big faction.
Bringing up aliens is showing a flaw in the narrative that the republicans have been moving further to the right while the democrats have been relatively steady how?
No seriously you have no case, stop embarrassing yourself.
Yeah it is because saying that the republican party as a whole has moved further to the right pushing more people into the extremist category isn't saying everyone in it is an extremist.
Yeah, it is a false comparison because saying it was and wasn't aliens are mutually exclusive. Saying that more people have become extremist on the right and not everyone on the right are extremists aren't mutually exclusive so it's a BS comparison.
Saying a trend has been observed isn't saying that it will continue indefinitely into the foreseeable future. Are you really this desperate to hold on to the narrative of the Orwellian left who labels anyone they don't agree with extremist?
Better to over rely on statistics than anecdotes and you're just using the "the left calls everything they don't agree with racist/extremist/homophobic" to discredit an argument by attacking the partisan position.
Just cause something hasn’t been substantiated by “statistics” doesn’t always make it anecdotal. The data is there, it just hasn’t been thoroughly refined into “statistics”.
Yeah, it hasn't been analyzed to determine if the observed variation can't be explained by random chance but your whining about all the SJWs is still just a combination of anecdotes and knit picking because you're desperate to hold onto the narrative of the radicalized left.
But in a country of 300+ million people in the age of social media anything can be easily blown out of proportion and seem much more prevalent than it is prior to any kind of statistical analysis. So at least my whining is based on observable trends versus knit picked data points.
Syntactically yes but the point remains I'm looking at composite data sets while you knit pick examples to fit your narrative of the "radicalizing left".
How many times do I have to point out that your statistics don’t incorporate every factor and only focuses on one group. Not to mention that the results could be influenced by bias.
“SJW fear mongering”. Pointing out the obvious isn’t fear mongering. What is fear mongering is how you keep acting as if the right wing is some potential fascist boogeyman. Plus, more and more people are actually starting to speak out against SJWs.
Of course no statistical test can do that but it still is more representative than an anecdote. And it could be flawed because of a partisan bias but that doesn't mean it is so that's just a throwaway statement on your part. More and more people aren't talking about SJWs, less and less people care about them. Seriously it's not 2016 anymore.
Just as rationalizing a riot isn't defending it, saying that SJWs aren't as big of an issue as fear mongering authoritarians would like everyone to believe (especially advocates of total tyranny who falsely claim to be for liberty) isn't defending them.
There are more SJWs than elected officials? You do know that every township and county in the country has elected officials right? And even so the SJWs weren't elected to represent the people on the left and the same argument could be made of the alt-right/white supremacists.
Could you be any more blinded by your partisan bias that you apply such a blatant double standard?
Are you oblivious to the fact that a person doesn’t need to be an elected official to influence a country’s society not to mention that not every elected official is right wing.
They don't but it's also an obvious fact that people who are elected are going to be on average more representative of their constituency than a major media figure. You don't know when to quit do you?
I’m not the who keeps replying with the same refuted arguments. It’s been almost a month and yet here you are still spouting off the same arguments over and over.
Say the majority elects someone, but that elected official proves to be the opposite of what the majority assumed he or she was. Does this elected official still speak for those who voted for him or her?
The notion that media figures are more representative of elected individuals is utter bilge so the only one stuck on a loop here is you. And in that case, no but that's not the case at hand now.
Don’t know what you mean by case at hand but it seems that you didn’t quite understand what I said.
I said that should an elected official turn out to be the opposite of what his or her supporters/voters expected then that elected official can hardly speak for his or her initial supporters.
Didn’t seem like you quite understood which is why I had to simplify it for you. As for the RNC re-nominating Trump, not their fault that many of the other candidates dropped out or didn’t impress them.
I understood what you said and I understand that it was just deflection on their part. And even if you can't judge their constituency by a politicians' actions you can still judge them by what they campaigned on. And either way they're still more representative than a bunch of internet commentator no matter what kind of weird "what ifs" you can come up with to try to push your narrative that the left is the more radicalized of the two sides in the US.
You still have no evidence that he doesn't represent his base of support so you're entire counter to elected officials being more representative of the right than SJWs are to the left is a what if and even if it was true it still wouldn't make the cut as a counterargument. And I actually showed data that indicated that the right was becoming more radicalized and you're only calling it knit picked because you're desperate to cling on to the "regressive left" mythos and you'll find some any way to spin the facts (no matter how ridiculous) to fit your narrative. And that's why this thread has been going on for so long.
You've been claiming that anecdotes are better than data which is blatantly false so yes you are. This is just showing how desperate you are to manipulate information to portray the left as "proto totalitarian".
Individual data points/anecdotes are exceptions. As in you’ll only find one or two unique instances. But when something happens every once in a while it can’t be called an “anecdote”.
Well in a country of 300+ million people it may be better to describe it as knit picking as opposed to legit case that the left is becoming more radicalized than the right because of "all the SJWs".
Fox news is part of the mainstream media and they do plenty of left bashing. Now they're just one outlet but a big part of that is right wing ideas can't compete in the free market place of ideas.
“ but a big part of that is right wing ideas can't compete in the free market place of ideas.”
Like the first amendment: freedom to listen to what I want to listen to, freedom to watch whatever movies/tv shows I want to watch, freedom to wear what I want, freedom to practice whatever religion I want. Freedom to practice any common hobby I want. Freedom to criticize whoever/whatever I want.
The first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to use any platform you want to do carry out the aforementioned activities. You can't recognize this and you're talking shit about how my partisan bias sounds? Oh the irony.
That's because you keep using throw away statements in a vain attempt to debunk them. And if you try to get a media site to shut down by hacking it, then that's censorship; trying to financially do so with boycotts isn't.
No and if the boycott was organized for expressing leftist views I'd encourage like minded people to give the website their business to support them but I wouldn't call it to censorship like a pouting, dramatic brat.
Easy to say that to a hypothetical. But even then boycotting a website will most likely not cause a website to be shut down since most of the people who use that website will still be giving it business.
But if that's the case then "cancel culture" isn't an issue. But nonetheless, if they get harassed by radical leftists, they can do what Carlos Maza did to Stephen Crowder for his bigoted mudslinging.
I'm glad the he got Crowder to stop harassing him and that remark about communism was obvious hyperbole. But it's ironic that you whine about how repressive communism is when you support a system of total tyranny.
How do I support “total tyranny”? Look in the mirror, I’m not the one that supports an ideology that tries to
1.) dictate what kind of tv shows, movies or video games are made 2.) control what a person wears 3.) control what music a person listens to 4.) control what religion a person chooses to follow 5.) control common hobbies a person practices 6.) control what a person eats 7.) revise the second amendment 8.) defends communist regimes 9.) justifies censorship
Not to mention the blatantly hypocrisies like scapegoating groups your ideology considers “privileged”.
I don't support any of those things but if we follow the libertarian world view and ditch corporate regulations (including anti-trust laws) it would be pretty easy for the production of those items and services to be monopolized and then private unaccountable organizations (versus the popular will of the public) would decide that for the rest of the population.
Fascism and proprietarianism (so called "libertarianism) are two sides of the corporatist coin. While fascism abolishes negative rights to expand corporate power at the expense of individual liberty, proprietarianism does the same via the abolition of positive rights (social security, public works etc...).
Except that libertarians mostly believe that a person should be able to opt out of social security in favor of personal retirement accounts, not necessarily abolish social security.
Abolishment of individual rights≠ abolishment of positive rights. Not to mention that private services already exist without libertarianism being the most dominant system.
Libertarians actually support strong individual rights, probably much stronger than either republicans or democrats. So calling libertarianism fascism is simply mudslinging.
Anyone can 'opt out of social security by not cashing their benefits just like they can opt out of public police protection and hire their own private security force but in either case you still pay into it because the economic opportunities your income is based on depends on those services.
I didn't say that abolishing positive rights and abolishing negative rights are the same thing but that abolishing either or are both methods to reconcile corporate (private) power at the expense of state (public) power.
2.) You don’t understand the idiom of the double edged sword do you? propertarianism could bring about more greedy corrupt corporations, while too much state control can bring about both authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And didn’t you just call libertarianism “propertarianism”?
1. Benefiting off a social service without paying into it is a BS sense of entitlement.
2. Every sword has two edges but that doesn't mean that they're as sharp and if power is to be concentrated in one side, better it be in the one that the public has a say in versus private unaccountable organizations to whom any threat to public well being is just an externality.
1.) If a person doesn’t want to pay for a service, then why shouldn’t they be able to opt out? Not saying I disagree with the concept of social security.
2.) Smart assery/sarcasm isn’t a valid argument here. Plus, guys like Stalin, Mao and FDR would disagree with you.
Was the public able to stop Stalin’s purges? Was the public able to stop the Great Leap Forward? Was the public able to stop the Japanese-American internment?
1) Because their economic opportunities are dependent on that service; someone may not go to college but their taxes still go to fund public Universities because their standard of living is dependent on people being educated.
2). No, but the fact that one is accountable to the public well being versus their own personal gain does and one not being perfect doesn't legitimize your counter.
1.) You see how it sounds to generalize an entire political movement? If you actually knew enough about libertarians, you’d realize that libertarians also come in different shapes in sizes, which means you’d understand that many libertarians only support lower taxes.
2.) Sounds like you are trying to justify the holodomor and Japanese-American internment. An injustice is an injustice whether it be for personal gain or “the greater good” it’s still an injustice.
I know libertarians come in many shapes and sizes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism But proprietarianism (despite what it's referred to in the US) isn't one of them because what they advocate is as far from "liberty" as you can get.
And it sounds like you're trying to misrepresent what I said AGAIN. In the previous statements I stated that it's a double edged sword but one edge is blunter than the other; not that you can't get hurt by the blunter edge.
Actually I said that they were exclusive (hence the link to Libertarian Socialism) and that proprietarians incorrectly (well a more accurate adverb would be 'deceptively') describe themselves as "Libertarians".
Actually it's proprietarians who are the opposite of libertarians; it's just that in the US the term has been distorted to mean the opposite of what it actually means because what proprietarianism advocates is privatized total tyranny. A governments' responsibility is the benefit of the public well being. Now it can fail at that (by negligence or malice of those in power) but corporatism (whether it'd be in the form of fascism or proprietariansm) cannot for one reason and one reason only: a system cannot fail at that it wasn't meant to do.
No, they're actual libertarians because they actually believe in you know LIBERTY. But I think I know proprietarians complain about totalitarian idealisms; they want to have total control over people's lives: (3:26-3:36) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtSv3x6lh3o
Yep because there are other forms of communism besides the ones you discuss and if you're going to cry "no true Scotsman" because they haven't come to power as of yet doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't exist or that they're automatically associated with the communist idealisms that came to power. Like I said, a state can fail in enacting the publics will or acting on behalf of the well being of the public but corporate entities were never intended to. They were only ever meant to consolidate power in the hands of the few which is why as bad as authoritarian communism may be, it couldn't hold a candle to proprietarianism in terms of repressive cruelty.
How many tries are you leftists going to give communism before you realize that it doesn’t work? Typical tankie revisionism.
How do you think the Soviet came to power in the first place? Do you think guys like Trotsky and Lenin made it known that their regime would be oppressive? Of course not. Not to mention that their revolution was led by both anarcho-communists and marxists to install a new totalitarian regime that brought misery to millions across Europe for several decades.
Speaking of which I’m sure you wouldn’t be to happy to hear someone say that there are different types of fascism, some worse than others.
A new totalitarian regime versus what? Pretty much all regimes were totalitarian in Eastern and central Europe prior to the second world war. But remind me how did the age of "Libertarian" capitalism (the idea that you subscribe to, not just one on your side of the spectrum) work out (the gilded age) the progressive era came about for good reason.
I’m sure many of those people who fled from the communist regimes will be more than thrilled to hear some American socialist tell them they “had it so good”. The difference is that I’m not trying to defend the third reich, while you seem to be defending guys like Stalin, Mao, ceausescu and Pot.
And I’ve said multiple times that while I vote libertarian because I agree with their ideas towards society, I’m politically independent. Yeah so much for you throwing labels like confetti. And as a matter of fact libertarians hold ideas that are prevalent amongst both the democrats and republicans so yeah not bad for an American third party that gets the best of both worlds.
More accusing me of fallacy accusations you use literally in the next paragraph. But don't complain about me "defending" proto-totalitarian idealisms (especially when I'm just debunking your fear mongering about) when you vote for a fully totalitarian one.
You haven’t debunked anything, all you have been doing is knit picking and using various fallacious arguments, not to mention that you are oblivious to your own hypocrisy.
And last I checked I’m not the one who is trying to defend the third reich while claiming Biden is on his way to become a dictator.
It would be fitting if I was calling all right wing organizations "fascits" which I'm not. I'm calling proprietarians and fascists two sides of the corporatist coin; there are many other right wing ideologies besides those totalitarian ones.
It would be if I claimed that everyone on the right (not that right wing extremism and certain branches are extremist) is extremist which I didn't. But the idea that the left has been more radicalized doesn't have any evidence to back it up.
Again, it’s hard to find proof of left wing extremism when left wing extremism is often incorrectly called “activism”. You also don’t seem to understand that there are different types of extremism.
But even then, simply typing “stats on far left extremism” on any search engine will still give you some stats on far left extremism.
Well given that we're both in the US I was assuming that we're talking about what's going on in this country as a whole and them being different kinds doesn't mean that they're not comparable.
Well if you measure them by a standard that can be measured in both (such as their voting position over time and the rise of terrorist attacks) then the right has the edge in terms of extremism.
Left wing extremism usually involves rioting, looting and vandalism but you won’t find much statistics on left wing extremism because many so called “experts” incorrectly label it as “activism” or try to make left wing extremism seem minuscule. www.google.com/.../
OK, but if we're going to count that as extremism, then it would also make sense to call supporting the policies behind mass incarceration (you know what's driving the riots) extremist as well. prospect.org/.../...ate_and_incarceration_rate.jpe
And yes, Bill Clinton passed the "three strikes law" BUT he did that when violent crime rates were greater than the incarceration rates and is now against the policy.
The only way they can be compared is if it’s measuring their size and shape. Trying to compare which one is better is a faulty comparison because they both have different types of nutrients.
No, this is just you trying to claim they're incomparable to weasel yourself out of a corner (like making throwaway statements about statistics not being perfect). The impact of mass incarceration has been far more detrimental than the riots so in that sense they are perfectly comparable so it's easy to say one is worse. Same with Global warming and covid downplaying.
Wrong again, private prisons are financing republican campaigns so they can keep more people in prison and turn greater profit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNiNv97ZdM You're staring out on a world on fire and complaining about the ashes.
The duration of the crime time and policies that increase recitivism. But companies profiting from imprisoning black people, who could have ever seen that coming -_-
I'm saying we shouldn't people incarcerated as long and encourage and repeal policies that encourage recitivism. As for what race has to do with this: www.aclu.org/.../...parities_aclu_submission_0.pdf
Plenty of countries have less recitivism than the US and it's got nothing to do with incompetence but keeping the pockets of their corporate financiers lines.
Yeah, because their prisons and judicial systems are actually meant to rehabilitate; ours are not by design because that would mean less money for private prisons.
If by defend you mean point out that many of the movements you glorified in your take were as (if not more) authoritarian than communist regimes or point out that the Western allies also installed authoritarian (imperialist) regimes after the second world war, then yes I'm defending communist regimes. But lets not forget that you support a system of privatized (total) tyranny and you're whining about me "defending" communist regimes. There are Republicans and Democrats within the judicial systems but as we can see it's the republican policies that put more people in prisons.
1.) That’s coming from a guy who called 1950s South Korea more authoritarian than North Korea.
2.) Me believing that wealth redistribution is wrong and that a person shouldn’t have to forfeit everything they worked so hard to earn doesn’t mean I support privatization.
3.) Again you don’t seem to understand the bigger issue which is wrongful imprisonments and outdated prison systems. There is nothing that says conservatives have to support private prisons, you are just trying to attribute negative practices to republicans and the right wing in general because they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
-I didn't say that nor did I say that was true of all the regimes you mentioned. I said "many" not "all". Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills.
-If by "wealth redistribution" you mean social services then yeah, you do support a system of corporate power at the expense of individual liberty via the abolition of positive rights (fascists do the same except they abolish negative rights).
-No one is saying people on the right have to support privatized prisons I'm saying that they're more inclined to.
2.) I was mostly referring to how you like to defend the rioters/looters. Which is pretty much wealth redistribution to the extreme. Hence the question why should people have to forfeit things they’ve worked so hard to earn?
-In my first remark I said "many" so I'm not back peddling. -Are you honestly so thick that you keep saying I defended the riots when I was rationalizing them. By your logic MLK was also defending them. -So is saying republicans are more often pro gun. So what?
1.) Explain how South Korea is more authoritarian than North Korea.
2.) Pointing the obvious isn’t fear mongering.
3.) The second amendment and privatized prisons do not correlate with each other. They are tow different things in which the second amendment is a value while private prisons aren’t values.
1) You're straw-manning again; I didn't say that regime was more authoritarian. Now you're just getting desperate.
2) Endlessly harping on about them while ignoring what's causing people to riot is lying by omission and fear mongering.
3) I never said that there was a correlation between the two. Sit down; you're dizzy from all that spinning and desperately grasping at straws. Is accepting that the right is more radicalized than the left really so hard for you?
1) Because you deliberately misrepresented my statement that many of the regimes you discussed were more authoritarian as me saying all were more authoritarian.
2) That also doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on draining the swamp driving people to riot or let people deflect attention away from it.
1.) What is getting ridiculous is how you are ignoring that you mentioned it first on the other post.
2.) There’s nothing authoritarian about criticizing them. If you were only trying to understand their behavior you wouldn’t be constantly talking about them.
3.) You probably haven’t but there are many within your side of the political spectrum who would gladly abolish the second amendment amendment if they could.
You’re the one who keeps using the same arguments over and over.
@ADFSSF1996 What the hell are you talking about? Do you really not understand what cancel culture is? Maybe telling you this might help you understand: You are literally trying to "cancel" cancel culture. That's it. People are "canceling" certain people or groups or whatever who share, support or engage in dangerous or harmful ideas, believes or activities. Someone vouching for totalitarianism is at high risk of being a "victim" of this so called "cancel culture". And you call it totalitarianism to try to forbid totalitarianism, but fail to grasp that by your own logic that makes you totalitarian? Well.
I have to admit thlugh that calling cancel culture "proto totalitarianism" and then proceeding to talk ablut trying to sounding edgy almost made me smirk.
Criticism is not “cancel culture”. It’s you who doesn’t seem to understand what cancel culture is. Or perhaps you think cancel culture is some form of civil rights advocacy when it’s not.
@ADFSDF1996 Cancel Culture is basically the same thing as boycotting. Do think boycotting a company is totalitarianism? Do you think people calling on to boycott a company are some sort of "company policy police"? Yeah, didn't think so.
@-Asca- Red herring since you seem to be ignoring the obvious which is how cancel culture is often misused to censor people who have different political views.
That's still not nearly the same. Further, there is usually proof; many of them you just have to show the video or tweets of them saying crappy things. In the case of #MeToo, there's usually more than one person making the accusations.
@goaded That is a logical fallacy, and also bullshit. For hundreds of years the entire population of the Earth believed it was flat. It isn't. For the exact fallacy, look at:
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][13] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[14][15] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[13][3][8] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[11] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.[11][16]
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
30Opinion
Yes, but it's done by a mob and not government so not true police.
Not "a form", it is a thought police.
Yes, and it's getting really dangerous at this point:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BbWEVgbIXbMConservatives may not do it as often but I do think trying to silence the nations' leading infectious disease expert during the deadliest pandemic in a century is way worse than any kind of "thought police" the left engages in.
Cherry picking and tu quoque.
Nope this is introducing quality on top of quantity into the equation.
Pretentiously misusing of fallacy terms.
Now you are using an argument from authority.
Yeah, kinda like I'd be arguing from authority if I said I think you should take a doctors' advice on medical issues.
Oh wait, it's not "kinda like that", it's exactly that.
@Ad_Quid_Orator
If you need an expert to explain common sense to you then that’s a sign of blatant stupidity.
But back to the original point. Of course it’s wrong Fauci is getting the “cancel culture” treatment but again that’s only one example and him being an expert doesn’t make it more significant than the more numerous examples of the far left canceling people just for not being PC.
Him being an expert alone doesn't, but him being the leading epidemiologist while we're facing the deadliest pandemic in a century does.
@Ad_Quid_Orator
“Leading epidemiologist” doesn’t mean he is the only epidemiologist in the world.
Of course he isn't but that doesn't mean that the stakes aren't way higher here than any kind of "cancel culture" the left has engaged in (even if you lumped all those incidences together).
That’s your opinion
And the idea that people trying to de-platform people they don't agree with on social media sites has the potential to impact more lives than the leading epidemiologist receiving death threats (an illegal means of trying to silence someone) in the midst of the deadliest pandemic in a century is yours.
Far left wingers frequently assault people during public manifestations who aren’t PC, yet I don’t hear you complaining.
And right wingers frequently assault people for saying things that aren't "Patriotically Correct" but you're not complaining either. In fact right wingers assaulted anti-lock down counter protesters for arguing that the lock-down was necessary to fight the virus (you know, a view that is scientifically correct). Are you really this desperate to push the narrative of the "censorious left"?
And left wingers assault people who don’t wear masks. When there’s a valid reason they aren’t wearing masks.
www.google.com/.../...ace-for-not-wearing-mask.amp
Are we really going to compare d*ck sizes?
No but we're not going to sit here and pretend that trying to get political commentators de-platformed is a bigger problem than the leading epidemiologist getting death threats in the midst of a pandemic.
As for which side is worse when it comes to politically motivated violence as a whole, we've known that for a long time:
www.typeinvestigations.org/.../
Except for the fact that most right wingers aren’t “extremists”.
So much for your statistics.
Neither are most people on the left. What's your point?
The point is your “statistics” are only referring to extremists.
Well if someone engages in politically motivated violence, I think that would make them "extremists".
Which most right wingers don’t do.
Niether do most left wingers. Now back to the issue of cancel culture. What happened to Fauci isn't the only issue. Did you forget about how a bunch of Jewish journalists got (((echoed))) in 2016 for speaking out against Trump?
Which also came with threats and harassment. You are within your first amendment right to request that a social media company not give someone a platform and refuse to do business with them or anyone who runs adds on their site. You are not within your first amendment right to threaten someone for voicing an opinion that you don't like.
More strawman on your part. When did I say it’s okay to threaten people? Oh that’s right, I never said it is okay to threaten people.
Quite hypocritical how you fail to acknowledge the harassment of conservatives.
www.google.com/.../new-ut-freshmen-threatened-with-release-of-personal-info-if-they-join-conservative-groups
And how many conservatives practice “self censorship” www.google.com/.../
Actually I didn't claim that you said it was "OK" to threaten people, I said it was worse than boycotting platforms that give a voice that you don't agree with. Oh the irony, your straw-man accusation is a straw-man.
Oh and now I'm supposed to mention every incident of egregious behavior committed by the left or I'm a hypocrite? How many times have you complained about the rioting committed by BLM and failed to acknowledge BLM activists murdered?
Now you're pulling Red Herrings on top of straw-men.
@Ad_Quid_Orator
How many times have you failed to acknowledge the brutal beatings of people who were simply passing through? www.google.com/.../512360-portland-protesters-caused-truck-to-crash-beat-driver-police%3famp
Seriously, I use an analogy to show how you were using red herrings and you respond with another red herring? This is just embarrassing on your part.
Look at you, you can’t even properly identify a fallacy. Almost all of your replies have been red herrings.
People receiving death threats for what they say is very relevant to cancel culture, that someone didn't point out every egregious act committed by their side is a distraction (i. e. a red-herring). So now you're projecting as well.
I ain’t projecting, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy.
Nope, you are projecting and contriving hypocrisy.
Look in the mirror before telling other people they are projecting.
I’m not the one who’s using Tuo quoque arguements.
Except you're the one who keeps (mis) using accusations of hypocrisy.
Looks like your whataboutism made you oblivious to the hypocrisy of your points.
Looks like you've been reduced to senseless rambling.
@Ad_Quid_Orator
“Senseless rambling” he says.
Last I checked, I’m not the one who used a reductio ad Hitlerum meme to make a point.
That point was that the right employs more despicable means to enact cancer culture like using holocaust references to threaten Jewish reporters, not that everyone on the right is a Nazi so again you're misusing fallacies (i. e. senselessly rambling).
@Ad_Quid_Orator
You are picking one specific instance and making it seem like it’s much more significant than it actually is.
Actually there were many instances of reporters getting threatened for Anti-Trump views. But I could say that about your complaints about "cancel culture" in general.
And there are many conservative reporters who get physically attacked in the streets.
See what happens when you use “whataboutism”, the debate turns into a d*ck size comparing contest.
What happens is you show that cancel culture is at least as common among conservatives as it is among "the social justice crowd" but going back to my original post, the stakes involved in conservative cancel culture are way higher.
If they truly were higher, you’d have more left wingers self censoring themselves.
You'd also have way less death threats coming from the right.
Again, Right wing extremists make up only a small fraction of the political right.
The same is true for left wing extremists but given the frequency of violent attacks, it's a larger portion of the right.
Tell that to the truck driver that mugged in Portland.
*got
No but I'll tell you that knit picking doesn't make your case. Now you could say that about the threats that Fauci faced are knit picking to but given his position and the current situation, that's like saying I'm knit picking one example of which terrorist organization commits the worst attacks when said attack was done with a nuclear weapon.
Now let me guess: you're going to cry "false equivalence" -_-
But it's not, the point that scale matters is valid in either case.
Hey you said yourself, it’s nitpicking on your part.
And the fact you ignore the truck driver that got actually got physically attacked in Portland speaks volumes.
Oh please, saying that because I didn't mention X attack by the left is just a pathetic attempt to contrive hypocrisy. It's just a shallow tu quo que because you're so desperate to push the narrative of the censorious left controlled by the SocJus/Social liberal/Cultural Marxist boogeyman.
But here's another example of my knit picking: I think the greatest perpetrators of terrorism in the US in 2001 were Islamic extremists because I'm knit picking the World Trade Center attacks.
Except that it’s a self evident fact that the mainstream media has an anti right wing bias, considering that right wingers are always depicted in negative stereotypical manners.
Here’s a rhetorical question. Who has more power, those that have the most influence in the mainstream media or those few far right extremist whackos?
The right wing extremist who holds the office of president who calls the media the enemy of the people and fosters right wing cancel culture.
Pretty much any republican is a “right wing extremist” to you.
No, but it has grown more extremist than it was before (all the while faux-centrists complain about the radicalized left).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICxKmCjF-4
Same can be said about the democrats who constantly complain about anyone who doesn’t agree them.
It could be said but given that Republican politicians have been getting more extreme, it doesn't mean anything.
Sounds like your political bias speaking.
Nope, just the data talking:
You sure like your “statistics” don’t you.
Well too bad that statistics are usually inaccurate due to bias and because they don’t consider all factors present.
And those statistics you just showed are irrelevant to political extremism since polarization is not synonymous with extremism.
No set of statistics are going to incorporate all factors (that's a throw-away argument on your part) and polarization isn't synonymous with extremism but there is a correlation (which is why we see more politically motivated killings committed by the right).
Again, you are generalizing the right.
Yeah, just like if I were to claim that "people on the right more often oppose social security expansion" I'd be generalizing -_-
Sounds like backpedaling on your part.
A "correlation" isn't an absolute rule so nope.
We are here talking about political extremism yet you decide to bring up something that has nothing to do with extremism?
If the average position of the members of a political party move further to the right, there will be more people falling into the right wing extremist category; that's pretty basic math.
Slippery slope.
Nope, basic math and misuse of a fallacy term on your part again.
This has nothing to do with “math” and last I checked you’re the one who’s fear mongering about the right.
If any party moves further away from the mean, the more outliers are going to fall into the extremist category.
Sounds like a faulty system considering that it’s easy to label anyone you disagree with as an “extremist”.
Again, no it';s just wherever the line was drawn for what would be considered "right wing extremist", if the average position of a party moves further to the right, the more people within that party will cross that threshold.
Are you seriously calling Trump an “extremist”?
Uh, yeah.
So pretty much any republican who becomes a president suddenly becomes a so called “extremist” to you.
Nope, but denial of anthropogenic climate change is definitely an extremist position to hold.
Extremists usually want some form of radical change in a system. Trump not caring about the environment is simple negligence, not extremism.
Usually, not always and environmental negligence is an extreme position to take because the consequences are severe (look what removing the regulation prohibiting the selling of endangered species in wet markets did).
Controversial at best.
How is that controversial; we know part of the viral genome possesses parts from a pangolin virus.
Controversial in the sense it’s a belief that isn’t widely accepted.
Both global warming and the origin of the virus in wet-market from a hybridized bat/pangolin pathogen are widely accepted by climatologists and epidemiologists.
I’m referring to Trump’s stance.
Again, there is a scientific consensus on climate change which he is ignoring. And you don't think that his migrant policy is extremist? I mean you talk about the internment of Japanese so lets' see what a survivor has to say about it:
www.newsweek.com/george-takei-internment-camps-japanese-arkansas-donald-trump-history-world-war-993107
Wow, I didn’t think you’d stoop so low but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The elephant in the room that isn’t brought up is how the Japanese-American internment happened under a social democrat‘: administration who your side of the political spectrum considers to be some sort of “hero”. And really, you are using something Takei said as an argument? Seriously?
Immigration centers have actually been around since the 1970s so to assume they are an invention of Trump is pretty ignorant. Does that make them right, absolutely not considering there are many human rights issues with those centers. But the real criticism should be directed at Trump’s poor handling of this already existing protocol.
Most people are aware that FDR was a Social Democrat and he ordered the internment of the Japanese. But there isn't just one elephant in the room; there is a whole herd and while you might nit pick one of them (that FDR was a Social Democrat) you're ignoring the matriarch (there was a war going on). Does that justify his actions? No but it does make ascribing his decision to his position on the political spectrum and unsupportable conclusion. You want to give the Republicans credit for passing the restitution bill (even though most voted against it), listen to what Reagan said at 1:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaQRhcBXKY
But none the less it was an extreme response and no, he didn't invent them but he did expand them all the while the number of undocumented migrants in the country went down under the same rate as Obama so it's not like we suddenly faced an immigration crisis that provoked Trumps' policy.
You literally cherry picked a part of the video. Not once did he try to justify the Japanese-American internment in the video or ever. You like to claim that most republican politicians did not approve of the bill but you fail to acknowledge that the Japanese internment was primarily restricted to the West Coast ( considering that only 13% of the US population blatantly advocated genocide of the Japanese and most anti Japanese incidents happened on the West Coast.
Adding in new protocols on a already existing faulty system isn’t extremist it’s negligence. If Trump were to advocate the deportation of every ethnic minority in the country then that would be extremist.
I'm not "knit picking" your straw-manning. He said it was the wrong thing to do but it wasn't for us to judge those who made the decision in the time of peril, not that it was justified. No kidding it was all on the West coast; that's where an attack by the Imperial Japanese military was most likely to happen (there's another elephant in the room that you're ignoring in your vain attempts to make the left look as bad/worse than the right when it comes to discrimination). And deporting minorities is where you draw the line for what would be considered "extremist"? Really?
1.) He’s discouraging hindsight bias and it’s still knit picking on your part or rather you subtly trying to justify the internment camps.
2.) Yet you ignore the fact it was a deliberate rounding up of loyal citizens based on their race. Not to mention the one drop rule was considered as well. Yeah you’re definitely trying to justify the internment.
3.) Deporting minorities despite being citizens falls into the category of extremism. Much like how rounding up loyal citizens is extremist.
If I was trying to "justify" the internment I wouldn't have compared it to a policy that I oppose in the first place. Saying that FDRs' decision was based on the fact that the US was at war versus his political views isn't "subtly justifying it". And no shit deporting a minority would be extremist, but the point is that there are plenty of other actions that could be considered extremist.
You saying I'm trying to justify it is just projection on your part. I could just as easily say you ascribing the issues in the detention centers to negligence is you trying to justify it. The difference of course that one injustice is still ongoing (not saying the past doesn't matter, just that what's happening now is more relevant).
I’m not the one who keeps changing the subject. Look at you original comment and look at what we are talking about now.
You changed it when you denied Trump was an extremist (not to mention how often he whines about the media).
You went from talking about Fauci to mudslinging the right wing.
And criticism of certain media sources isn’t whining, it doesn’t matter how “prestigious” a media source is, that doesn’t make it exempt from criticism.
I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture). And criticizing the media is one thing but pushing executive orders to control them is another issue entirely. And yet "classical liberals" and the "new center" keep saying the left is way worse when it comes to Orwellian measures.
“ I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture).”
You’ve got to listen to both sides before making such bold statements that hold little substance due to exaggeration. conservativeleaders4ed.org/.../
“ And criticizing the media is one thing but pushing executive orders to control them is another issue entirely.
You are still acting as if Trump speaks for the entire right wing as a whole. Last I checked, his executive order to combat online censorship is not actually enforceable; it only looks good on paper. If he wants to make it enforceable he would have to revise the first amendment and make the first amendment stronger, which isn’t happening.
“ And yet "classical liberals" and the "new center" keep saying the left is way worse when it comes to Orwellian measures”
At least the moderates aren’t trying to de platform those they disagree with. Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by many left wing groups.
1. What do conservative views on K-12 education have to do with this?
2. Even though he was stopped, he still tried to run afoul of the first amendment (ironically while claiming to be fighting censorship).
3. Yeah, the left are the hypocritical ones when the "classical liberals" and "new center" claim to be impartial but overwhelmingly bash the left even though it's demonstrable that the Republicans have been drifting further to the right all the while claiming "impartiality" because they have their head stuck down the anti SJW rabbit hole. What a load.
1.) you’re the one who brought up public education sources.
2.) He was attacking online censorship.
3.) That’s because the political left nowadays does a lot more things than the right that are worth criticizing.
1) Where did I bring it up?
2) "Online censorship" would be an corporate internet giant hacking and/or disabling someone's own website. What the orders were against was de-platforming.
3) More things they do are brought to light by social media but we know that of the two parties, the Republicans are becoming more extreme. Are you really still hiding behind the facade of impartiality?
1.) “ I was mudslinging the right for trying to shut down more important public education sources using more despicable means (which is relevant to cancel culture).”
2.) Don’t you think de platforming is a form of censorship?
3.) Again, you seem to think that being more critical is a form of “extremism”. It’s not that I’m impartial it’s that I’m neither democrat or republican. Being impartial to politics is a synonym for being apolitical which most people aren’t considering that most people have opinions on political matters.
1) I meant public *information sources
2) If I don't let someone put a Trump bumper sticker on my vehicle, am I censoring them?
3) You repeatedly stated "you don't have a dog in this fight" but if I recall, you're part of an extremist right-wing ideology:
1.) Again, you are nitpicking Trump while ignoring the fact that he isn’t the only right winger out there.
2.) That’s your personal property, so no that’s not censorship. While social media is used by the public. For someone who likes to advocate change in a system, you don’t seem too eager when the change comes from someone with opposing views.
2.) Between Democrat and republican. I do have my own political views but I don’t consider myself either democrat or republican. And are you seriously citing propaganda from a anarchist as a credible source?
1) Given that he was voted to represent them, it's hardly knit picking.
2) If I make my own website, it doesn't give people the right to use it to spread your message and to decide who I do and don't give a platform to is my freedom of speech so I don't like changes that run afoul of the freedom of speech by anyone (no matter their political affiliation).
3) Call it propaganda but it's still true.
1.) They don’t share the same mind.
2.) Of course, just don’t except many people to use that website.
3.) Far from it, it’s nothing more than mudslinging.
1) Neither does all the cancel culture SJWs but many still hold the same views on the topic.
2) I wouldn't but don't pretend that being denied a platform is censorship.
3) It's tearing down the facade of "freedom" the "libertarian" party has concocted; you're taking power away from the public sphere (government) and giving it to private unaccountable organizations.
1.) The fact SJWs share the same views on a topic makes them a group think
2.) It is a unwritten form of censorship.
3.) sounds like more communist propaganda. Considering that’s not what libertarians want, what libertarians actually want is to minimize the authoritarian power of the government not redistribute the power to individual organizations. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
1) Just like many conservatives have the same mind-set.
2) It's unwritten and a not a form of censorship at all.
3) "Libertarian" capitalists (more accurately described as propretarianists) want the government to act as a means to enforce what power corporations have under the guise of "freedom of contract":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsfV9GewvF8
1.) Agreeing on certain topics and being sycophantic are two different things.
2.) Just cause it’s not written doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. De-platforming based on censorship is the equivalent of breaking a norm, even though it’s not illegal it will still attract outrage.
3.) Are you seriously using some leftist “comedian’s” debate a with one libertarian politician as affirmation of your own biases?
1) But they aren't mutually exclusive either.
2) The problem is Trump wanted to make it illegal
3) That the "freedom of contract" is an oxymoron is a fact no matter who claims it (again, you're attacking the bias to deflect the argument off the issue). And the only reason you think that proprietarianism ('libertarian' capitalism') advocates individual liberty is your bias makes you see the issue from the perspective of "negative rights" when positive rights are needed to protect individual liberty as well. Without them, the vast majority of the population lives at the mercy of corporations.
Well, at least we know why you talk about "proto-totalitarian ideologies" so much: you don't want them cutting in on your action. They want to dominate people's lives? Bullshit that's what you see as your fucking job.
1.) They aren’t always but in this case they are.
2.) But he didn’t and he doesn’t speak for everyone that is on the right side of the political spectrum. Social media sites can de platform anyone they like but if the people start to boycott those social media websites then those social media websites can’t complain since they provoked the boycott.
3.) And the left’s “equality” is an oxymoron. What you are describing is anarchism, which the libertarians are not. What libertarians tend to support is a night-watchman state, not anarchy.
“ Well, at least we know why you talk about "proto-totalitarian ideologies" so much: you don't want them cutting in on your action. They want to dominate people's lives? Bullshit that's what you see as your fucking job.”
What are you even talking about?
Funny how you call me a supporter of “totalitarianism” when you constantly defend various communist leaning political movements.
1) That's true of "SJWs" as well.
2) He speaks for more people on the right than do SJWs do for the left.
3) Acting as a night watchman is only enforcing negative rights, not positive ones so I'm not conflating it with anarchy and what I'm saying that you talking constantly about "proto totalitarian groupthink" when you subscribe to a totalitarian idea is just projection.
Oh and supporting "communist leaning" movement is worse than subscribing to one that advocates total tyranny? LMAO.
1.) Are you seriously trying to defend SJWs which are a group of extremists? That’s like trying to defend neo Nazism.
2.) No he doesn’t, he only speaks for some.
3.) A limited government isn’t referring to only negative rights.
4.) More mudslinging but then again to you anyone on the right somehow advocates “totalitarianism”. Last I checked the right aren’t the ones trying to rescind the second amendment, ban religion, control the entertainment/arts or enforce newspeak.
1) SJWs are no where near as extreme as Nazis; a better comparison would be with the Republican party because at the RNC they used the same kind of BS SJWs did.
2) He speaks for the majority of them which is why they elected him. And he still speaks for more people on the right than SJWs do for people on the left.
3) No kidding, the Libertarian limited government would enforce negative rights but take away positive rights (social security, funding for education, healthcare, minimum wages, workers protection etc...).
4) There are elements of the right who want to restrict the first amendment (including the one in office) and the one before him tried to force religion into the public sphere and has used the war on drugs as an excuse to get private prisons big bucks. But saying that certain elements of the right are totalitarian (like fascists and 'libertarians') isn't saying that everyone on the right is totalitarian. So pretty much everything faux centrists claim the SJWs are doing, the RNC has been doing at least a decade before anyone ever heard of an SJW.
Also the right expanded the military even if the ideology you subscribe to advocates a smaller military budget. But I doubt most 'libertarians' would have an issue with corporations raising private paramilitaries.
What’s your issue with the military?
How much we excessively spend on it:
Ever bothered to ask why so much is spent on the military?
www.defenseone.com/.../
I think I know why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU
slate.com/.../...een-completely-misunderstood.html
www.google.com/.../the-real-point-of-eisenhowers-warning-about-the-military-industrial-complex
Except I'm not saying military power isn't necessary, I'm saying our military budget is overblown and that Eisenhower warned against defense contractors getting too much influence (which given our military budget relative to our GDP when compared to other countries) they have obtained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3KFBXQI2E
www.google.com/.../..._story.html%3foutputType=amp
The notion that we spend so much because we've assumed responsibility is utter tosh because many of our allies in the regions mentioned in that article have way higher military budgets than other countries in their regions and our soldiers cost more? OK lets' downsize the number of personal we have to really emphasize quality over quantity.
You do realize that many allies of the US are actually paying for the US to keep military bases in their countries right? Not to mention that some of these countries have other issues. nationalinterest.org/.../natos-real-problem-germanys-military-dying-102362
Does how much they pay us come close to breaking even so our per GDP budget is comparable to other countries? Doubt it. And arguing that we need to have a strong military but should bear arms to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical (with said military) is contradictory.
Did you not see the statistics showing that even with the gap in spending, the military strength of the US when compared it’s rivals is not much different?
The idea of the right to bear arms nowadays is strictly for self defense and hunting.
Yeah I did and instead of outspending 8 to 1 it's now like 4 to 1. Either way, we're still outspending.
And you also have the right supporting policies behind mass incarceration.
1.) What you’re proposing only looks good on paper considering that it would decrease the quality of the military equipment the military uses.
2.) Republicans usually do but not other parts of the right.
Or we could reduce the quantity instead and republicans did pass the laws behind mass incarceration.
1.) Sure, let’s arm our military with nothing more than slingshots and air soft guns.
2.) Republicans aren’t the only right wing party.
1) I've seen slippery slopes but saying that if we have a budget twice versus for times that of our enemy we'll be fighting with sling shots is ridiculous.
2) But they're the most predominant one.
1.) Looks like figures of speech go over your head.
2.) Doesn’t mean that they all support it.
1) . More like blatant exaggeration.
2) . The GOP is still more representative of the right in the US than the SJWs are of the left.
1.) Figure of speech doesn’t always equal exaggeration
2.) Sounds like anti right propaganda
1) Ok then what were you insinuating.
2) That the person the right elected to represent them is more representative of them than a few internet personalities are of the left is "anti-right propaganda"? Are you that blinded by your partisan bias?
1.) The fact that the military would be hampered
2.) If anyone is blinded by partisan bias, it’s you. If Biden wins in November is he going to represent everyone on the left?
1) Yeah, but other social services would have a lot more funding and we're way above what we need to defend our country and allies.
2) Biden is an SJW? Yeah, you're completely blinded by partisan bias; you're perspective has been warped by the SJW rabbit hole.
1.) A lot of good cheaper quality equipment will do
2.) Point where I called Biden an SJW.
1) OK then.
2) I said "That the person the right elected to represent them is more representative of them than a few internet personalities are of the left is "anti-right propaganda"? Are you that blinded by your partisan bias?" then you asked if he would represent the left so you were hinting at it. But he would be more representative than the SJWs.
The point is that you think Trump speaks for everyone that is right wing. Which brings up the hypothetical rhetorical question that if Biden wins in November, would he be speaking on behalf of the left wing as a whole.
Your making a straw man again. I didn't say that he is completely representative of the right, just that he's more representative of the right than the SJWs are of the left.
Doesn’t make it accurate
But it still makes a better case than the "radicalized left" narrative you're trying to push.
That’s your partisan bias speaking considering that there is radicalization on the left.
As there has always been radicals on the left but given that the data shows that they right has been getting more radical; this whole perception of the left becoming more radical is just an artifact of people getting more voices through social media.
As for my "partisan bias" well...
Very delusional. There’s a big difference between your “truth” and “The truth”
Yeah, because seeing a bunch of whiners on line is more indicative of which side is "radicalizing" than the political actions of elected officials in your view; OK -_-
Here’s a rhetorical question.
Can Trump dictate every political decision governors make?
No, but that doesn't mean that he isn't more representative of the right than the SJWs are of the left.
Except that again, Trump doesn’t speak for the right as a whole. While the left tends to pander towards SJWs.
That's just conjecture on your part; I could just as easily say the right tends to pander to the "alt right".
apnews.com/.../Neo-Nazi-candidate-kicked-out-of-California-GOP-convention
Still strawmanning and generalizing the right being entirely extremist?
See, I didn't actually make that claim that the Right does pander to "alt-Right" and you can find plenty of incidences of people on the left denouncing SJWs & Antifa. The point is that now you're asserting anecdotal claims because you're desperate to hold on to the narrative that the left has become more radicalized and intolerant than the right.
But you implied it with your tu quoque.
The difference here is that the acedotal example holds way more significance than the narrative you are trying promote of the right somehow being one big faction.
Quit straw manning. I never said that the right was all extremists, just that they've been becoming more extremists.
So now you're reduced to ad hominems -_-
Get over yourself.
It’s not an ad hominem, I’m just showing the flaw in your narrative.
Bringing up aliens is showing a flaw in the narrative that the republicans have been moving further to the right while the democrats have been relatively steady how?
No seriously you have no case, stop embarrassing yourself.
Are you thick?
It’s to show how you sound by saying...
“ I never said that the right was all extremists, just that they've been becoming more extremists.”
Because saying that extremism is growing more prevalent in a political party is the same as saying they've all become extremists, right -_-
And you call me thick LMAO; talk about projection.
It’s called “subtle”.
And it's a BS comparison.
Far from it
Yeah it is because saying that the republican party as a whole has moved further to the right pushing more people into the extremist category isn't saying everyone in it is an extremist.
You are implying everyone on the right is “becoming extremist”.
Yeah, it is a false comparison because saying it was and wasn't aliens are mutually exclusive. Saying that more people have become extremist on the right and not everyone on the right are extremists aren't mutually exclusive so it's a BS comparison.
Saying a trend has been observed isn't saying that it will continue indefinitely into the foreseeable future. Are you really this desperate to hold on to the narrative of the Orwellian left who labels anyone they don't agree with extremist?
Like I said, “statistics” tend to be inaccurate because they don’t account every single factor, they make generalizations on only a small group.
The way you are describing the right implie that you think they are “extremists” simply because they have views you don’t agree with.
Better to over rely on statistics than anecdotes and you're just using the "the left calls everything they don't agree with racist/extremist/homophobic" to discredit an argument by attacking the partisan position.
Just cause something hasn’t been substantiated by “statistics” doesn’t always make it anecdotal. The data is there, it just hasn’t been thoroughly refined into “statistics”.
Yeah, it hasn't been analyzed to determine if the observed variation can't be explained by random chance but your whining about all the SJWs is still just a combination of anecdotes and knit picking because you're desperate to hold onto the narrative of the radicalized left.
If something happens often it’s highly unlikely to be “random”.
Ironically you are the one who keeps whining about the “extremist right”.
But in a country of 300+ million people in the age of social media anything can be easily blown out of proportion and seem much more prevalent than it is prior to any kind of statistical analysis. So at least my whining is based on observable trends versus knit picked data points.
Ironically your “observable trends” are nothing more than nit picked data.
No they're composite.
Tomato tomahto.
More like singular versus plural (tomatoes vs tomato).
Wrong yet again, if it were plural vs singularity it would be percentage vs one example.
Syntactically yes but the point remains I'm looking at composite data sets while you knit pick examples to fit your narrative of the "radicalizing left".
Again, you don’t seem to understand that not all data has been refined into statistics.
Still beats anecdotes about how rampant SJWs are on the left.
Except that your flawed statistics doesn’t really prove much.
Oh how is it so "flawed" and how are your anecdotes better?
Seriously quit embarrassing yourself; the age of SJW fear mongering is over.
How many times do I have to point out that your statistics don’t incorporate every factor and only focuses on one group. Not to mention that the results could be influenced by bias.
“SJW fear mongering”. Pointing out the obvious isn’t fear mongering. What is fear mongering is how you keep acting as if the right wing is some potential fascist boogeyman. Plus, more and more people are actually starting to speak out against SJWs.
Of course no statistical test can do that but it still is more representative than an anecdote. And it could be flawed because of a partisan bias but that doesn't mean it is so that's just a throwaway statement on your part. More and more people aren't talking about SJWs, less and less people care about them. Seriously it's not 2016 anymore.
SJWs go by many names including the radical left. Just cause the term “SJW” is no longer trending doesn’t mean that SJWs aren’t still criticized.
What I do find odd is how you initially implied that SJWs don’t speak for you, yet here you are defending them.
Just as rationalizing a riot isn't defending it, saying that SJWs aren't as big of an issue as fear mongering authoritarians would like everyone to believe (especially advocates of total tyranny who falsely claim to be for liberty) isn't defending them.
Oh so now I’m a “fear mongering authoritarian” projection much?
Is it really that hard to understand that criticism isn’t fear mongering?
Criticising? No.
Saying that they are more representative of the left than elected officials are of the right? Absolutely.
There are more SJWs than there are elected officials. Furthermore, anyone can be an SJW while only a select few can be elected officials
There are more SJWs than elected officials? You do know that every township and county in the country has elected officials right? And even so the SJWs weren't elected to represent the people on the left and the same argument could be made of the alt-right/white supremacists.
Could you be any more blinded by your partisan bias that you apply such a blatant double standard?
Are you oblivious to the fact that a person doesn’t need to be an elected official to influence a country’s society not to mention that not every elected official is right wing.
They don't but it's also an obvious fact that people who are elected are going to be on average more representative of their constituency than a major media figure. You don't know when to quit do you?
I’m not the who keeps replying with the same refuted arguments. It’s been almost a month and yet here you are still spouting off the same arguments over and over.
Say the majority elects someone, but that elected official proves to be the opposite of what the majority assumed he or she was. Does this elected official still speak for those who voted for him or her?
The notion that media figures are more representative of elected individuals is utter bilge so the only one stuck on a loop here is you. And in that case, no but that's not the case at hand now.
Don’t know what you mean by case at hand but it seems that you didn’t quite understand what I said.
I said that should an elected official turn out to be the opposite of what his or her supporters/voters expected then that elected official can hardly speak for his or her initial supporters.
I know that's what you meant I also know that you're using a hypothetical as a deflection from the actual issues at hand; the RNC re-nominated Trump.
Didn’t seem like you quite understood which is why I had to simplify it for you. As for the RNC re-nominating Trump, not their fault that many of the other candidates dropped out or didn’t impress them.
I understood what you said and I understand that it was just deflection on their part. And even if you can't judge their constituency by a politicians' actions you can still judge them by what they campaigned on. And either way they're still more representative than a bunch of internet commentator no matter what kind of weird "what ifs" you can come up with to try to push your narrative that the left is the more radicalized of the two sides in the US.
Do you even know what “deflection” is? The RNC re-nominating Trump due to the factors involved isn’t “deflection”.
And the only who’s posting “what if’s” it’s you, not to mention that you have been replying with nitpicked arguments for almost a month now.
You still have no evidence that he doesn't represent his base of support so you're entire counter to elected officials being more representative of the right than SJWs are to the left is a what if and even if it was true it still wouldn't make the cut as a counterargument. And I actually showed data that indicated that the right was becoming more radicalized and you're only calling it knit picked because you're desperate to cling on to the "regressive left" mythos and you'll find some any way to spin the facts (no matter how ridiculous) to fit your narrative. And that's why this thread has been going on for so long.
You are persistent aren’t you.
Have you not been paying attention on how not all data has been refined into statistics?
You're the one who keeps pushing these BS cases ad nauseum. Even if it's not "refined" it's still better than anecdotes and talking points.
I’m not the one who has been replying with the same refuted points (just worded differently) for almost a month.
You've been claiming that anecdotes are better than data which is blatantly false so yes you are. This is just showing how desperate you are to manipulate information to portray the left as "proto totalitarian".
Saying that there’s data that hasn’t been organized is not the same as saying anecdotes are better than data.
But that's what you're saying.
I’m not the one who dismiss unorganized data as “anecdotes”.
Individual data points are anecdotes. Cut the BS.
Individual data points/anecdotes are exceptions. As in you’ll only find one or two unique instances. But when something happens every once in a while it can’t be called an “anecdote”.
Well in a country of 300+ million people it may be better to describe it as knit picking as opposed to legit case that the left is becoming more radicalized than the right because of "all the SJWs".
Easy for you to say when left wingers aren’t constantly being vilified by the mainstream media.
Fox news is part of the mainstream media and they do plenty of left bashing. Now they're just one outlet but a big part of that is right wing ideas can't compete in the free market place of ideas.
“ but a big part of that is right wing ideas can't compete in the free market place of ideas.”
Like the first amendment: freedom to listen to what I want to listen to, freedom to watch whatever movies/tv shows I want to watch, freedom to wear what I want, freedom to practice whatever religion I want. Freedom to practice any common hobby I want. Freedom to criticize whoever/whatever I want.
See how your partisan bias sounds.
The first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to use any platform you want to do carry out the aforementioned activities. You can't recognize this and you're talking shit about how my partisan bias sounds? Oh the irony.
And the first amendment doesn’t allow people to riot. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L92tkG8udrg
See how red herrings sound?
I didn't say that it did and at this point you're just getting desperate.
The only one who’s desperate here is you since you won’t shut up. You have been arguing with me on three different threads for almost a month.
The same could be said of you.
I’m not the one who keeps repeating the same arguments.
That's because you keep using throw away statements in a vain attempt to debunk them. And if you try to get a media site to shut down by hacking it, then that's censorship; trying to financially do so with boycotts isn't.
Oh, so you would be fine with people boycotting democrat, communist and social websites until they shut down?
No and if the boycott was organized for expressing leftist views I'd encourage like minded people to give the website their business to support them but I wouldn't call it to censorship like a pouting, dramatic brat.
Easy to say that to a hypothetical. But even then boycotting a website will most likely not cause a website to be shut down since most of the people who use that website will still be giving it business.
But if that's the case then "cancel culture" isn't an issue. But nonetheless, if they get harassed by radical leftists, they can do what Carlos Maza did to Stephen Crowder for his bigoted mudslinging.
And how did that work out for him?
www.google.com/.../youtube-steven-crowder-monetization-reinstated-harassment-carlos-maza
Funny how you are defending a communist though. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w0R9Xj9jqkI
I'm glad the he got Crowder to stop harassing him and that remark about communism was obvious hyperbole. But it's ironic that you whine about how repressive communism is when you support a system of total tyranny.
And his videos are once again monetized.
How do I support “total tyranny”? Look in the mirror, I’m not the one that supports an ideology that tries to
1.) dictate what kind of tv shows, movies or video games are made
2.) control what a person wears
3.) control what music a person listens to
4.) control what religion a person chooses to follow
5.) control common hobbies a person practices
6.) control what a person eats
7.) revise the second amendment
8.) defends communist regimes
9.) justifies censorship
Not to mention the blatantly hypocrisies like scapegoating groups your ideology considers “privileged”.
I don't support any of those things but if we follow the libertarian world view and ditch corporate regulations (including anti-trust laws) it would be pretty easy for the production of those items and services to be monopolized and then private unaccountable organizations (versus the popular will of the public) would decide that for the rest of the population.
Fascism and proprietarianism (so called "libertarianism) are two sides of the corporatist coin. While fascism abolishes negative rights to expand corporate power at the expense of individual liberty, proprietarianism does the same via the abolition of positive rights (social security, public works etc...).
Except that libertarians mostly believe that a person should be able to opt out of social security in favor of personal retirement accounts, not necessarily abolish social security.
Abolishment of individual rights≠ abolishment of positive rights. Not to mention that private services already exist without libertarianism being the most dominant system.
Libertarians actually support strong individual rights, probably much stronger than either republicans or democrats. So calling libertarianism fascism is simply mudslinging.
Anyone can 'opt out of social security by not cashing their benefits just like they can opt out of public police protection and hire their own private security force but in either case you still pay into it because the economic opportunities your income is based on depends on those services.
I didn't say that abolishing positive rights and abolishing negative rights are the same thing but that abolishing either or are both methods to reconcile corporate (private) power at the expense of state (public) power.
“ but in either case you still pay into it because the economic opportunities your income is based on depends on those services. ”
1.) And that’s the main difference
“ abolishing either or are both methods to reconcile corporate (private) power at the expense of state (public) power.”
2.) That’s a double edged sword
1. Yeah, what's your point?
2. Nope, two sides of the same coin. And I said proprietarianism and fascism are two sides of the same kind, not (actual) libertarianism.
1.) What Libertarians want
2.) You don’t understand the idiom of the double edged sword do you?
propertarianism could bring about more greedy corrupt corporations, while too much state control can bring about both authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And didn’t you just call libertarianism “propertarianism”?
1. Benefiting off a social service without paying into it is a BS sense of entitlement.
2. Every sword has two edges but that doesn't mean that they're as sharp and if power is to be concentrated in one side, better it be in the one that the public has a say in versus private unaccountable organizations to whom any threat to public well being is just an externality.
1.) If a person doesn’t want to pay for a service, then why shouldn’t they be able to opt out? Not saying I disagree with the concept of social security.
2.) Smart assery/sarcasm isn’t a valid argument here. Plus, guys like Stalin, Mao and FDR would disagree with you.
Was the public able to stop Stalin’s purges? Was the public able to stop the Great Leap Forward?
Was the public able to stop the Japanese-American internment?
1) Because their economic opportunities are dependent on that service; someone may not go to college but their taxes still go to fund public Universities because their standard of living is dependent on people being educated.
2). No, but the fact that one is accountable to the public well being versus their own personal gain does and one not being perfect doesn't legitimize your counter.
1.) You see how it sounds to generalize an entire political movement? If you actually knew enough about libertarians, you’d realize that libertarians also come in different shapes in sizes, which means you’d understand that many libertarians only support lower taxes.
2.) Sounds like you are trying to justify the holodomor and Japanese-American internment. An injustice is an injustice whether it be for personal gain or “the greater good” it’s still an injustice.
I know libertarians come in many shapes and sizes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
But proprietarianism (despite what it's referred to in the US) isn't one of them because what they advocate is as far from "liberty" as you can get.
And it sounds like you're trying to misrepresent what I said AGAIN. In the previous statements I stated that it's a double edged sword but one edge is blunter than the other; not that you can't get hurt by the blunter edge.
Then you should understand that libertarianism isn’t always synonymous with “propertarianism”.
Actually I said that they were exclusive (hence the link to Libertarian Socialism) and that proprietarians incorrectly (well a more accurate adverb would be 'deceptively') describe themselves as "Libertarians".
Libertarian-socialists are as libertarian as a communist dictatorship is a democracy.
Actually it's proprietarians who are the opposite of libertarians; it's just that in the US the term has been distorted to mean the opposite of what it actually means because what proprietarianism advocates is privatized total tyranny. A governments' responsibility is the benefit of the public well being. Now it can fail at that (by negligence or malice of those in power) but corporatism (whether it'd be in the form of fascism or proprietariansm) cannot for one reason and one reason only: a system cannot fail at that it wasn't meant to do.
Same way how libertarian socialists are pseudo-libertarians
No, they're actual libertarians because they actually believe in you know LIBERTY. But I think I know proprietarians complain about totalitarian idealisms; they want to have total control over people's lives: (3:26-3:36)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtSv3x6lh3o
Oh, so now people who have Marxist, anarchist and anarcho communist views suddenly believe in “liberty”?
Did you even read that Wikipedia article about libertarian socialists?
Yep because there are other forms of communism besides the ones you discuss and if you're going to cry "no true Scotsman" because they haven't come to power as of yet doesn't mean that the ideology doesn't exist or that they're automatically associated with the communist idealisms that came to power. Like I said, a state can fail in enacting the publics will or acting on behalf of the well being of the public but corporate entities were never intended to. They were only ever meant to consolidate power in the hands of the few which is why as bad as authoritarian communism may be, it couldn't hold a candle to proprietarianism in terms of repressive cruelty.
How many tries are you leftists going to give communism before you realize that it doesn’t work? Typical tankie revisionism.
How do you think the Soviet came to power in the first place? Do you think guys like Trotsky and Lenin made it known that their regime would be oppressive? Of course not. Not to mention that their revolution was led by both anarcho-communists and marxists to install a new totalitarian regime that brought misery to millions across Europe for several decades.
Speaking of which I’m sure you wouldn’t be to happy to hear someone say that there are different types of fascism, some worse than others.
A new totalitarian regime versus what? Pretty much all regimes were totalitarian in Eastern and central Europe prior to the second world war. But remind me how did the age of "Libertarian" capitalism (the idea that you subscribe to, not just one on your side of the spectrum) work out (the gilded age) the progressive era came about for good reason.
More tu quoque and whataboutisms.
I’m sure many of those people who fled from the communist regimes will be more than thrilled to hear some American socialist tell them they “had it so good”. The difference is that I’m not trying to defend the third reich, while you seem to be defending guys like Stalin, Mao, ceausescu and Pot.
And I’ve said multiple times that while I vote libertarian because I agree with their ideas towards society, I’m politically independent. Yeah so much for you throwing labels like confetti. And as a matter of fact libertarians hold ideas that are prevalent amongst both the democrats and republicans so yeah not bad for an American third party that gets the best of both worlds.
More accusing me of fallacy accusations you use literally in the next paragraph. But don't complain about me "defending" proto-totalitarian idealisms (especially when I'm just debunking your fear mongering about) when you vote for a fully totalitarian one.
You haven’t debunked anything, all you have been doing is knit picking and using various fallacious arguments, not to mention that you are oblivious to your own hypocrisy.
And last I checked I’m not the one who is trying to defend the third reich while claiming Biden is on his way to become a dictator.
Now you're just projecting again and not making those claims doesn't mean you're not a corporatist shill.
Name calling isn’t a valid counter argument. It’s like me calling you a commie just for being left winger.
It would be fitting if I was calling all right wing organizations "fascits" which I'm not. I'm calling proprietarians and fascists two sides of the corporatist coin; there are many other right wing ideologies besides those totalitarian ones.
Yeah, sounds like back pedaling.
It would be if I claimed that everyone on the right (not that right wing extremism and certain branches are extremist) is extremist which I didn't. But the idea that the left has been more radicalized doesn't have any evidence to back it up.
Again, it’s hard to find proof of left wing extremism when left wing extremism is often incorrectly called “activism”. You also don’t seem to understand that there are different types of extremism.
But even then, simply typing “stats on far left extremism” on any search engine will still give you some stats on far left extremism.
Well of course it exists but there is no evidence that it's anywhere near as bad as right wing extremism.
Depends on the country and or region of the country. Not to mention that left wing and right extremism are two different types of extremism.
Well given that we're both in the US I was assuming that we're talking about what's going on in this country as a whole and them being different kinds doesn't mean that they're not comparable.
Depends on how you compare them.
Well if you measure them by a standard that can be measured in both (such as their voting position over time and the rise of terrorist attacks) then the right has the edge in terms of extremism.
Left wing extremism usually involves rioting, looting and vandalism but you won’t find much statistics on left wing extremism because many so called “experts” incorrectly label it as “activism” or try to make left wing extremism seem minuscule.
www.google.com/.../
OK, but if we're going to count that as extremism, then it would also make sense to call supporting the policies behind mass incarceration (you know what's driving the riots) extremist as well.
prospect.org/.../...ate_and_incarceration_rate.jpe
And yes, Bill Clinton passed the "three strikes law" BUT he did that when violent crime rates were greater than the incarceration rates and is now against the policy.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges.
And as I've told you time and time again, depending on the criteria, apples and oranges can be compared. The same applies here.
No they can’t, that’s just smart assery.
The only way they can be compared is if it’s measuring their size and shape. Trying to compare which one is better is a faulty comparison because they both have different types of nutrients.
No, this is just you trying to claim they're incomparable to weasel yourself out of a corner (like making throwaway statements about statistics not being perfect). The impact of mass incarceration has been far more detrimental than the riots so in that sense they are perfectly comparable so it's easy to say one is worse. Same with Global warming and covid downplaying.
Mass incarceration/imprisoning the innocent is authority incompetence rather than extremism
Rioting is extremism not incompetence.
Wrong again, private prisons are financing republican campaigns so they can keep more people in prison and turn greater profit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNiNv97ZdM
You're staring out on a world on fire and complaining about the ashes.
The real issue is imprisoning of the innocent, what is the problem with imprisoning actual criminals?
The duration of the crime time and policies that increase recitivism. But companies profiting from imprisoning black people, who could have ever seen that coming -_-
www.youtube.com/watch
So are you saying that criminals shouldn’t be arrested as often? And what does race have anything to do with this?
I'm saying we shouldn't people incarcerated as long and encourage and repeal policies that encourage recitivism. As for what race has to do with this:
www.aclu.org/.../...parities_aclu_submission_0.pdf
The only way we can decrease recidivism is by implementing Norway’s prison system.
As for your “statistics” that’s a matter of wrongly imprisoning people or judicial incompetence not political extremism.
Plenty of countries have less recitivism than the US and it's got nothing to do with incompetence but keeping the pockets of their corporate financiers lines.
Nope, they are different judicial and prison structures. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TgujwijPwxo
Yeah, because their prisons and judicial systems are actually meant to rehabilitate; ours are not by design because that would mean less money for private prisons.
Still, I don’t get why you are making it a left wing vs right wing issue when every state has similar prison systems.
Because Republicans are getting more campaign contributions from them and not all States have the same incarceration rate:
That’s the prisons’ own doing.
And incarceration rates don’t change the fact that all prisons in the US follow similar systems.
No it's the Judicial systems' doing and the policies are clearly different from state to state. Now you're just being an apologist.
There are both republicans and democrats within the judicial system and none of the prisons resemble Norway’s prisons.
The only apologist here is you, have you forgotten that you blatantly tried to defend communist regimes?
If by defend you mean point out that many of the movements you glorified in your take were as (if not more) authoritarian than communist regimes or point out that the Western allies also installed authoritarian (imperialist) regimes after the second world war, then yes I'm defending communist regimes. But lets not forget that you support a system of privatized (total) tyranny and you're whining about me "defending" communist regimes. There are Republicans and Democrats within the judicial systems but as we can see it's the republican policies that put more people in prisons.
1.) That’s coming from a guy who called 1950s South Korea more authoritarian than North Korea.
2.) Me believing that wealth redistribution is wrong and that a person shouldn’t have to forfeit everything they worked so hard to earn doesn’t mean I support privatization.
3.) Again you don’t seem to understand the bigger issue which is wrongful imprisonments and outdated prison systems. There is nothing that says conservatives have to support private prisons, you are just trying to attribute negative practices to republicans and the right wing in general because they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
-I didn't say that nor did I say that was true of all the regimes you mentioned. I said "many" not "all". Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills.
-If by "wealth redistribution" you mean social services then yeah, you do support a system of corporate power at the expense of individual liberty via the abolition of positive rights (fascists do the same except they abolish negative rights).
-No one is saying people on the right have to support privatized prisons I'm saying that they're more inclined to.
1.) Sounds like backpedaling.
2.) I was mostly referring to how you like to defend the rioters/looters. Which is pretty much wealth redistribution to the extreme. Hence the question why should people have to forfeit things they’ve worked so hard to earn?
3.) Another generalization
-In my first remark I said "many" so I'm not back peddling.
-Are you honestly so thick that you keep saying I defended the riots when I was rationalizing them. By your logic MLK was also defending them.
-So is saying republicans are more often pro gun. So what?
1.) Even then you are still ignoring obvious facts that those regimes were the lesser evil.
2.) Making several opinionated posts says otherwise.
3.) Pro gun correlates with the second amendment, privatized prisons don’t correlate with any amendment.
-Not necessarily.
-It says that people are using the riots to fear monger.
-But being pro or anti gun as well as pro or anti private prison does correlate (but isn't dictated by) with a partisan stance
1.) Explain how South Korea is more authoritarian than North Korea.
2.) Pointing the obvious isn’t fear mongering.
3.) The second amendment and privatized prisons do not correlate with each other. They are tow different things in which the second amendment is a value while private prisons aren’t values.
1) You're straw-manning again; I didn't say that regime was more authoritarian. Now you're just getting desperate.
2) Endlessly harping on about them while ignoring what's causing people to riot is lying by omission and fear mongering.
3) I never said that there was a correlation between the two. Sit down; you're dizzy from all that spinning and desperately grasping at straws. Is accepting that the right is more radicalized than the left really so hard for you?
1.) Then why mention it in the first place? Talk about back pedaling
2.) Nobody ever said there shouldn’t be outrage towards injustice. But there’s still rules that must be followed when showing outrage.
3.) Odd coming from a guy whose ideology wants to abolish the second amendment.
1) Because you deliberately misrepresented my statement that many of the regimes you discussed were more authoritarian as me saying all were more authoritarian.
2) That also doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on draining the swamp driving people to riot or let people deflect attention away from it.
3) Now you're making shit up -_-
1.) Yet you just happened to pick South Korea as an example
2.) Right because rioters targeting minority owned businesses is the equivalent of fighting injustice. I’m being sarcastic by the way.
3.) More back pedaling.
1) No you picked it as an example (this is getting ridiculous).
2) No but again you're using the authoritarian tactic of conflating rationalizing and justifying them. Give it a rest.
3) I've never stated that I support abolishing the second amendment so you're making shit up again.
If you're going to keep lying like this, I'm done wasting my time with you. We've been arguing for a month and you keep going in circles.
1.) What is getting ridiculous is how you are ignoring that you mentioned it first on the other post.
2.) There’s nothing authoritarian about criticizing them. If you were only trying to understand their behavior you wouldn’t be constantly talking about them.
3.) You probably haven’t but there are many within your side of the political spectrum who would gladly abolish the second amendment amendment if they could.
You’re the one who keeps using the same arguments over and over.
Not at all. It's just supply and demand.
It can be, but it's more akin to Mob rule.
Absolutely right! I described it as a lynching.
Cancel culture needs to end
I think calling cancel culture a form of thought police is a form of thought police
@-Asca-
Criticism of a proto totalitarianism is not “thought police”.
So much for trying to sound edgy.
@ADFSSF1996 What the hell are you talking about? Do you really not understand what cancel culture is? Maybe telling you this might help you understand: You are literally trying to "cancel" cancel culture. That's it. People are "canceling" certain people or groups or whatever who share, support or engage in dangerous or harmful ideas, believes or activities. Someone vouching for totalitarianism is at high risk of being a "victim" of this so called "cancel culture". And you call it totalitarianism to try to forbid totalitarianism, but fail to grasp that by your own logic that makes you totalitarian? Well.
I have to admit thlugh that calling cancel culture "proto totalitarianism" and then proceeding to talk ablut trying to sounding edgy almost made me smirk.
@-Asca- Did I strike a nerve?
Criticism is not “cancel culture”. It’s you who doesn’t seem to understand what cancel culture is. Or perhaps you think cancel culture is some form of civil rights advocacy when it’s not.
@ADFSDF1996 Cancel Culture is basically the same thing as boycotting. Do think boycotting a company is totalitarianism? Do you think people calling on to boycott a company are some sort of "company policy police"? Yeah, didn't think so.
@-Asca- Red herring since you seem to be ignoring the obvious which is how cancel culture is often misused to censor people who have different political views.
It's just pansy soy boys and feminist
We need to attack the attackers
that's just general reporting bias of the media
Cancel culture can go back to hell.
No - its a form of lynching and it sucks.
Just without the killing, and because of behaviour, not skin colour.
@goaded because of alleged behavior. Asserted without proof.
That's still not nearly the same. Further, there is usually proof; many of them you just have to show the video or tweets of them saying crappy things. In the case of #MeToo, there's usually more than one person making the accusations.
@goaded You believe that the more people that repeat an accusation, the more likely it is to be true?
I think the more corroborating testimony there is, the more likely it is to be true.
@goaded That is a logical fallacy, and also bullshit. For hundreds of years the entire population of the Earth believed it was flat. It isn't. For the exact fallacy, look at:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][13] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[14][15] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[13][3][8] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[11] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.[11][16]
Yeah, I don't see where I said anything about a majority believing anything.
@goaded Bullshit. You said "I think the more corroborating testimony there is, the more likely it is to be true."
Oh, good grief. If one person says they saw someone run a red light, and someone else says so, too, isn't it more likely to be true?
@goaded No
Of course it is.
Definitely