Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guys, this was about the use of X words. All this conversation belong to the US politic thread!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Me likey.!

To the falsehoods. You (walrus) can do better then that.
Cheering Muslims on the streets after 9/11,
***It was in Palestine. I saw them that day on TV.

Which wasn't what Trump said, he said he saw them in Jersey City. Blatantly not true.
I'll be frank, if I had to pick Jersey or Palestine, I'd rent out Jersey and live in Palestine.

 Frazzled wrote:


getting more votes than Clinton,
***He did where it counted.

Which, again, isn't what he said. He said more votes, which isn't true.
In actuality he said he had more votes if you take out the illegal alien vote. We don't know how many illegal aliens voted.

 Frazzled wrote:

Obama wiretapping Trump,
***Well the Feds have admitted they have been investigating his team, and there have been leaks from intelligence agencies, and Rice was found to have unmasked Trump aids and shipped that out en mass. While legal, its accurate.

Wiretapping people related to Trump's campaign is not the same as Obama ordering the wiretapping of Trump tower.
Obama was in charge.*


*It appears to be part of a legal investigation so I am ok with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Galas is right. He has disabled me!

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 feeder wrote:
[

I guess. I'm not willing to invest anymore time into the hand wringing hysteria that "the left is destroying our society!" crowd is currently circle jerking themselves into a frenzy over.

Yeah, this is a weird one. Even here in the Netherlands there are people blaming "the left" for everything that's going wrong here - even though we haven't had a left-wing government in well over a decade. Well, left-wing by Dutch standards, anyway.

well in the context we are discussing, the regressive left is why Trump won the election, and rightfully so. I mean their rhetoric was wearing thin. I am not saying I wished him to win, but when you sit down and think about how it happened, his campaign didn't win on its own merits, it was handed to him by people who were feeling marginalized and called names by the far left in order to win what should have been proper discourse. You can only attempt to talk with far gone liberals so many times before you realize they only have one tool in the tool box. Feminism today is along the same lines. Hold a door for a woman, we now label you a sexist. This thread is full of regressive ideology which is in fact how Trump won the presidency.Feeder is right , we will get republican after republican unless this stops.

I thought Hillary was the reason that Trump "won" the election (noting once again she won a lot more votes than Trump.)

Hilary didn't have to play the card of the illiberals by painting half of her detractors as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it. But she chose to. I've heard it said that she was coming off the flu when she said that, and she didn't have her appropriate filter on. That makes it even worse, because it suggests she really believes it. She was a war hawk, too cozy with big businesses and questionable governments, and that played into it, as well, I'm certain. But adopting the language of the regressive did as well, and I personally believe that is what tipped the scales. I could just feel her chances to win the election plunge after she made those comments. Same feeling I got when Romney made his 47% comment.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any case, as with all competitions wig a winner and loser, I think the outcome is determined because both the winner won and the loser lost, and not one or the other.

Do you believe that the popular vote for Trump increased because Hillary was revealed as a regressive-liberal?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wiretapping people related to Trump's campaign is not the same as Obama ordering the wiretapping of Trump tower.

I think YOU'RE the one who can do better than that Frazzled.

I like how you're all about weaselwords and technicalities, up until it's time to accuse someone on the right of something. Then it's outright damning and undeniable evidence.

Such as? Did Trump not claim that there was no rain during his inauguration? Were there thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey?

When someone makes a specific claim the way Trump does, something vaguely related does not prove that the specific claim was true.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Such as? Did Trump not claim that there was no rain during his inauguration? Were there thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey?

When someone makes a specific claim the way Trump does, something vaguely related does not prove that the specific claim was true.

You're doing that thing again. I'll address this, but the OP of this thread as well as another participant have had to ask us to get on track.

If he lied about something as simple as the rain, and it pisses the regressive left off really bad- I hope he starts saying that fire and brimstone and human feces is falling from the sky, just to piss them off even more. Because the reaction to this is comical. I'm glad it drives you insane, and I'm glad that a lie about the rain bothers you more than a lie about sending support to recover endangered US personnel- it speaks VOLUMES, and does more to damage the left wing than anything I could possibly type out on an internet forum. Thank you, thank you so much.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Such as? Did Trump not claim that there was no rain during his inauguration? Were there thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey?

When someone makes a specific claim the way Trump does, something vaguely related does not prove that the specific claim was true.

You're doing that thing again. I'll address this, but the OP of this thread as well as another participant have had to ask us to get on track.

If he lied about something as simple as the rain, and it pisses the regressive left off really bad- I hope he starts saying that fire and brimstone and human feces is falling from the sky, just to piss them off even more. Because the reaction to this is comical. I'm glad it drives you insane, and I'm glad that a lie about the rain bothers you more than a lie about sending support to recover endangered US personnel- it speaks VOLUMES, and does more to damage the left wing than anything I could possibly type out on an internet forum. Thank you, thank you so much.

Now YOU'RE doing "that thing again" where you're making up arguments to argue against. I've said that I'm not touching Benghazi with a 10-mile pole. That's the only statement I've made on it, the rest is in your head. In other words, you're lying. Again.

Your last post also proves you were lying about something else: you DO care about my feelings. You're not indifferent, you're actively trying to antagonize me in order to piss me off as part of a strategy. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about what that means about all of the American right based on the actions of one person.

Regardless, I'm done. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. I'm going to go do something more productive, like calling for the overthrow of the androcentric regime of the United States and its replacement by a caniocracy. I'm sure I can get Frazzled with me on that one at least.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Now YOU'RE doing "that thing again" where you're making up arguments to argue against. I've said that I'm not touching Benghazi with a 10-mile pole. That's the only statement I've made on it, the rest is in your head. In other words, you're lying. Again.

Yeah, you're refusing to address it. I mean, I can't say that's dumb. You might have to admit that 'lying about things' on a grander scale exists for the cult you support. When you're this committed to something and refuse to do the critical thinking, because you're that dedicated to a cult or ideology... it's more likely you're going to deflect or use mental gymnastics to justify your position.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your last post also proves you were lying about something else: you DO care about my feelings. You're not indifferent, you're actively trying to antagonize me in order to piss me off as part of a strategy. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about what that means about all of the American right based on the actions of one person.

Oh, you're right. As I said, when someone loses it at me and gets ass-mad- I'm doing the Lord's work.

You're really, really stretching here to say "Hahaha! I got you, you're wrong!"

I mean, think what you wanna think. I'm not here to change how you feel.

Edit: Also, when it comes to destroying a country- I'd say you guys are pretty good at it... even if it is self-inflicted.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 feeder wrote:
[

I guess. I'm not willing to invest anymore time into the hand wringing hysteria that "the left is destroying our society!" crowd is currently circle jerking themselves into a frenzy over.

Yeah, this is a weird one. Even here in the Netherlands there are people blaming "the left" for everything that's going wrong here - even though we haven't had a left-wing government in well over a decade. Well, left-wing by Dutch standards, anyway.

well in the context we are discussing, the regressive left is why Trump won the election, and rightfully so. I mean their rhetoric was wearing thin. I am not saying I wished him to win, but when you sit down and think about how it happened, his campaign didn't win on its own merits, it was handed to him by people who were feeling marginalized and called names by the far left in order to win what should have been proper discourse. You can only attempt to talk with far gone liberals so many times before you realize they only have one tool in the tool box. Feminism today is along the same lines. Hold a door for a woman, we now label you a sexist. This thread is full of regressive ideology which is in fact how Trump won the presidency.Feeder is right , we will get republican after republican unless this stops.

I thought Hillary was the reason that Trump "won" the election (noting once again she won a lot more votes than Trump.)

Hilary didn't have to play the card of the illiberals by painting half of her detractors as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it. But she chose to. I've heard it said that she was coming off the flu when she said that, and she didn't have her appropriate filter on. That makes it even worse, because it suggests she really believes it. She was a war hawk, too cozy with big businesses and questionable governments, and that played into it, as well, I'm certain. But adopting the language of the regressive did as well, and I personally believe that is what tipped the scales. I could just feel her chances to win the election plunge after she made those comments. Same feeling I got when Romney made his 47% comment.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any case, as with all competitions wig a winner and loser, I think the outcome is determined because both the winner won and the loser lost, and not one or the other.

Do you believe that the popular vote for Trump increased because Hillary was revealed as a regressive-liberal?

If I understand your question correctly, than yes, I believe that Trumps vote count increased as a result of Clinton's "deplorables" debacle.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 feeder wrote:
[

I guess. I'm not willing to invest anymore time into the hand wringing hysteria that "the left is destroying our society!" crowd is currently circle jerking themselves into a frenzy over.

Yeah, this is a weird one. Even here in the Netherlands there are people blaming "the left" for everything that's going wrong here - even though we haven't had a left-wing government in well over a decade. Well, left-wing by Dutch standards, anyway.

well in the context we are discussing, the regressive left is why Trump won the election, and rightfully so. I mean their rhetoric was wearing thin. I am not saying I wished him to win, but when you sit down and think about how it happened, his campaign didn't win on its own merits, it was handed to him by people who were feeling marginalized and called names by the far left in order to win what should have been proper discourse. You can only attempt to talk with far gone liberals so many times before you realize they only have one tool in the tool box. Feminism today is along the same lines. Hold a door for a woman, we now label you a sexist. This thread is full of regressive ideology which is in fact how Trump won the presidency.Feeder is right , we will get republican after republican unless this stops.

I thought Hillary was the reason that Trump "won" the election (noting once again she won a lot more votes than Trump.)

Hilary didn't have to play the card of the illiberals by painting half of her detractors as racist, homophobic, xenophobic, you name it. But she chose to. I've heard it said that she was coming off the flu when she said that, and she didn't have her appropriate filter on. That makes it even worse, because it suggests she really believes it. She was a war hawk, too cozy with big businesses and questionable governments, and that played into it, as well, I'm certain. But adopting the language of the regressive did as well, and I personally believe that is what tipped the scales. I could just feel her chances to win the election plunge after she made those comments. Same feeling I got when Romney made his 47% comment.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any case, as with all competitions wig a winner and loser, I think the outcome is determined because both the winner won and the loser lost, and not one or the other.

Do you believe that the popular vote for Trump increased because Hillary was revealed as a regressive-liberal?

There is a consensus, although impossible to quantify, among classic liberals and libertarians that the regressive left, of whom Hillary is a large part of, turn off many of the voters in the swing States, which led to Trump winning the Electoral college. Now how that pertains to this thread is classic liberals such as Ben Rubin are now speaking out against the thought police, virtue signaling, speech controlling far left.in fact it has gone so far now that the real Democrats are more in line with libertarians than they were previously.

Example is separating ideology from people. When Sam Harris says islamism is a problem for Western society and states reasons why based on fact, the far left responds with Sam Harris is a racist. It makes any form of real discussion impossible.

The reason I get behind the Rubin Report is he invites everyone and let's them tell their side. No yelling or name calling. He had Milo on and they had a great interview. Love him or hate him they guy has stuff to say, and most liberals would rather brand him than listen to him. Rubin may not agree, but he allows you to say what you want. That is how it needs to be, how it should be.

 redleger wrote:
There is a consensus, although impossible to quantify, among classic liberals and libertarians that the regressive left, of whom Hillary is a large part of, turn off many of the voters in the swing States, which led to Trump winning the Electoral college. Now how that pertains to this thread is classic liberals such as Ben Rubin are now speaking out against the thought police, virtue signaling, speech controlling far left.in fact it has gone so far now that the real Democrats are more in line with libertarians than they were previously.

Lolwut? I thought "regressive left" was a bunch of random people on social media, as opposed to the "reasonable" mainstream left. Now we're really getting into "no true Scotsman" territory, where only the libertarians are the "true" liberals.

Example is separating ideology from people. When Sam Harris says islamism is a problem for Western society and states reasons why based on fact, the far left responds with Sam Harris is a racist. It makes any form of real discussion impossible.

No, people respond that Sam Harris is a racist because Sam Harris is a racist and apologist for torture. When you're advocating increased security against people who "look Muslim" you're openly using racist principles about skin color determining who a person is. And it's a stupid idea that would be laughably ineffective, as anyone with even a casual knowledge of security and common sense can see. It's a source of endless annoyance for me that Harris is considered any kind of leader for atheism and given so much attention.

 Peregrine wrote:

 redleger wrote:
There is a consensus, although impossible to quantify, among classic liberals and libertarians that the regressive left, of whom Hillary is a large part of, turn off many of the voters in the swing States, which led to Trump winning the Electoral college. Now how that pertains to this thread is classic liberals such as Ben Rubin are now speaking out against the thought police, virtue signaling, speech controlling far left.in fact it has gone so far now that the real Democrats are more in line with libertarians than they were previously.

Lolwut? I thought "regressive left" was a bunch of random people on social media, as opposed to the "reasonable" mainstream left. Now we're really getting into "no true Scotsman" territory, where only the libertarians are the "true" liberals.

Example is separating ideology from people. When Sam Harris says islamism is a problem for Western society and states reasons why based on fact, the far left responds with Sam Harris is a racist. It makes any form of real discussion impossible.

No, people respond that Sam Harris is a racist because Sam Harris is a racist and apologist for torture. When you're advocating increased security against people who "look Muslim" you're openly using racist principles about skin color determining who a person is. And it's a stupid idea that would be laughably ineffective, as anyone with even a casual knowledge of security and common sense can see. It's a source of endless annoyance for me that Harris is considered any kind of leader for atheism and given so much attention.

1. Libertarians are not liberals. That's not what I said. Classic liberals are real liberals aka Democrats. I am libertarian, not a Democrat.

2.Sam Harris is misquoted on his stance by regressives often, and he made a fair statement that has nothing to do with racism. In his main example of airport security he says why is Granny, who is 70 yrs old being being randomly selected for checks, when it is possibly a waisted of resources, and instead someone like himself could be screened instead. His conclusion is because the TSA is so worried about offending people and representing a fairness, which of it self is not fair, that they will screen obviously non radicalized people like Granny instead of men and women who would not be so easily dismissed as possible radicalized people. I watched his whole explanation instead of taking people's word for it. It is a fair point, agree or disagree with it that's fine but it's not racist, and instead of having the conversation about it, saying he is racist is literally the regressive tactic.

Hey guys, please don't get this thread locked. Someone called me clever a few pages ago, and it's all I got.

jasper76 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be objetive here, the straight white males have been opressing every other group through all our history.

To play the Devil's Advocate, do you think the straight white males who bled and died in the US Civil War to free slaves were oppressing African-Americans, or liberating them?

All ethnic groups have checkered histories, good mixed with bad.

Both, in a way. They were liberating them from one problem but that's about it. If they were so very equal then why was there a need for a civil rights movement in the 20th century? Why are there studies that show that the same resume but with different ethnic/gender indicating names get different results (with everything being equal a white/male sounding name gets the best results)? Even if things are legally completely equal doesn't mean that prejudices and unconscious biases just disappear magically. So all these straight/white/male people are not personally and directly oppressing minorities but the system we live in favours them/us. When you take a white male working class person in the rust belt then they would have a comparably better life than a black female working class person in the rust belt because of how our culture still prefers white/male people (without logical reason, just due to unconscious biases) and they would on average have an easier time getting one of the few jobs that are available. Things like that is why people say we have a system where minorities are oppressed while white/male people benefit from it, not because every white/male is subjugating minorities individually.

redleger wrote:There is a consensus, although impossible to quantify, among classic liberals and libertarians that the regressive left, of whom Hillary is a large part of, turn off many of the voters in the swing States, which led to Trump winning the Electoral college. Now how that pertains to this thread is classic liberals such as Ben Rubin are now speaking out against the thought police, virtue signaling, speech controlling far left.in fact it has gone so far now that the real Democrats are more in line with libertarians than they were previously.

That shows that the Democrats have economic policies that are to some degree similar to what the libertarians/Republicans like because they all prioritise the economy instead of the population (and that's why working class wages have stagnated in the last three/four decades no matter who was in power in the US). Ben Rubin? I think you mean Dave Rubin (googling Ben Rubin results in some Magic: The Gathering player). The dude is on the right of most issues (or libertarian), just because he doesn't care about gay marriage doesn't mean he's should be reasonably grouped on the left (the best offer is right leaning centrist with a tiny bit of left overlap).

That being said, do you have the same worries about the "thought police, virtue signalling, and speech controlling" of the right? Stuff like this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/lgbtq-issues-class-lawsuit-utah/
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article139909173.html
https://unicornbooty.com/beauty-and-the-beast-canceled/
http://www.avclub.com/article/tomi-lahren-banned-permanently-theblaze-report-cla-252788
http://jezebel.com/the-campus-free-speech-battle-youre-not-seeing-1791631293
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/opinion/andrew-cuomos-anti-free-speech-move-on-bds.html

Or is your handwringing only reserved for free speech you care about because I never see that stuff come up in discussions here? I see this argument about the left thought police and censorship all the time but the right actually has some of that stuff enforced. Maybe your worries would be more useful on the other side of the spectrum?

Example is separating ideology from people. When Sam Harris says islamism is a problem for Western society and states reasons why based on fact, the far left responds with Sam Harris is a racist. It makes any form of real discussion impossible.

He gets called out for generalising statements like any other pundit who say the same stupid things. I'm an atheist but the dude is not really that reasonable and unbiased as people want to believe and has a strange PhD thesis. I wouldn't really hold him up as either rational or trustworthy, he has his own quite narrow minded agenda.

The reason I get behind the Rubin Report is he invites everyone and let's them tell their side. No yelling or name calling. He had Milo on and they had a great interview. Love him or hate him they guy has stuff to say, and most liberals would rather brand him than listen to him. Rubin may not agree, but he allows you to say what you want. That is how it needs to be, how it should be.

I'll just leave this here about Rubin and the "invites everyone" bit: https://twitter.com/RubinOfAkkad/status/847843337713405952 (direct link to the image). You might like him for some reason but don't assume he does anything of this for the sake of a reasonable discussion (or that he's any type of liberal in any way it's used today). He's just another gakky pundit.

Mario wrote:
(On Sam Harris) He gets called out for generalising statements like any other pundit who say the same stupid things. I'm an atheist but the dude is not really that reasonable and unbiased as people want to believe and has a strange PhD thesis. I wouldn't really hold him up as either rational or trustworthy, he has his own quite narrow minded agenda.

...

]I'll just leave this here about Rubin and the "invites everyone" bit: https://twitter.com/RubinOfAkkad/status/847843337713405952 (direct link to the image).

So you rail against Sam Harris as being irrational and untrustworthy with a narrow minded agenda, and then you present us with this gem of a critiique against Dave Rubin. Here's the lead:

Why Exactly Dave Rubin Sucks so Hard: A Gaze into the Abyss

I get alot of gak for criticizing Dave Rubin so much, which is confusing since he sucks in such a public, visibile way. So I am going to present my case in the form of statements from Person A, a dipgak, and rebuttals by an able-brained human.

Yeah, that sounds rational, trustworthy. and open-minded.

Perhaps you should apply the same critiques you hold for people like Sam Harris to the horsegak you are allowing yourself to get sucked into on Twitter.

Dave Rubin has said he invites regressives on his show, but they won't take him up on it. I'm inclined to believe him unless there is some actual evidence to the contrary. Juveniles on twitter throwing temper tantrums is not your best foot to stand on here, I'd suggest.

Mario wrote:

jasper76 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be objetive here, the straight white males have been opressing every other group through all our history.

To play the Devil's Advocate, do you think the straight white males who bled and died in the US Civil War to free slaves were oppressing African-Americans, or liberating them?

All ethnic groups have checkered histories, good mixed with bad.

Both, in a way. They were liberating them from one problem but that's about it. If they were so very equal then why was there a need for a civil rights movement in the 20th century? Why are there studies that show that the same resume but with different ethnic/gender indicating names get different results (with everything being equal a white/male sounding name gets the best results)? Even if things are legally completely equal doesn't mean that prejudices and unconscious biases just disappear magically. So all these straight/white/male people are not personally and directly oppressing minorities but the system we live in favours them/us. When you take a white male working class person in the rust belt then they would have a comparably better life than a black female working class person in the rust belt because of how our culture still prefers white/male people (without logical reason, just due to unconscious biases) and they would on average have an easier time getting one of the few jobs that are available. Things like that is why people say we have a system where minorities are oppressed while white/male people benefit from it, not because every white/male is subjugating minorities individually.

redleger wrote:There is a consensus, although impossible to quantify, among classic liberals and libertarians that the regressive left, of whom Hillary is a large part of, turn off many of the voters in the swing States, which led to Trump winning the Electoral college. Now how that pertains to this thread is classic liberals such as Ben Rubin are now speaking out against the thought police, virtue signaling, speech controlling far left.in fact it has gone so far now that the real Democrats are more in line with libertarians than they were previously.

That shows that the Democrats have economic policies that are to some degree similar to what the libertarians/Republicans like because they all prioritise the economy instead of the population (and that's why working class wages have stagnated in the last three/four decades no matter who was in power in the US). Ben Rubin? I think you mean Dave Rubin (googling Ben Rubin results in some Magic: The Gathering player). The dude is on the right of most issues (or libertarian), just because he doesn't care about gay marriage doesn't mean he's should be reasonably grouped on the left (the best offer is right leaning centrist with a tiny bit of left overlap).

That being said, do you have the same worries about the "thought police, virtue signalling, and speech controlling" of the right? Stuff like this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/lgbtq-issues-class-lawsuit-utah/
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article139909173.html
https://unicornbooty.com/beauty-and-the-beast-canceled/
http://www.avclub.com/article/tomi-lahren-banned-permanently-theblaze-report-cla-252788
http://jezebel.com/the-campus-free-speech-battle-youre-not-seeing-1791631293
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/opinion/andrew-cuomos-anti-free-speech-move-on-bds.html

Or is your handwringing only reserved for free speech you care about because I never see that stuff come up in discussions here? I see this argument about the left thought police and censorship all the time but the right actually has some of that stuff enforced. Maybe your worries would be more useful on the other side of the spectrum?

Example is separating ideology from people. When Sam Harris says islamism is a problem for Western society and states reasons why based on fact, the far left responds with Sam Harris is a racist. It makes any form of real discussion impossible.

He gets called out for generalising statements like any other pundit who say the same stupid things. I'm an atheist but the dude is not really that reasonable and unbiased as people want to believe and has a strange PhD thesis. I wouldn't really hold him up as either rational or trustworthy, he has his own quite narrow minded agenda.

The reason I get behind the Rubin Report is he invites everyone and let's them tell their side. No yelling or name calling. He had Milo on and they had a great interview. Love him or hate him they guy has stuff to say, and most liberals would rather brand him than listen to him. Rubin may not agree, but he allows you to say what you want. That is how it needs to be, how it should be.

I'll just leave this here about Rubin and the "invites everyone" bit: https://twitter.com/RubinOfAkkad/status/847843337713405952 (direct link to the image). You might like him for some reason but don't assume he does anything of this for the sake of a reasonable discussion (or that he's any type of liberal in any way it's used today). He's just another gakky pundit.

Yes, I am not sure why or how I fethed up his first name, that's the one.

I am for free speech. Full stop. I don't have to like what anyone says. They can say it. What happened to Tomi Lauren was stupid and is a problem on the right as well. I think that's why the middle is becoming more populous.

I am not defending Sam Harris's positions on all things, I was simply saying the answer to everything he says seems to be he's a racist which is counter productive and helps nothing. It's a tactic of someone scared to really engage with someone. One thing I will point out though is reformed former Muslims seem to be stating slot of the same things he says, so it's a discussion worth having.

Your link to the "why Rubin sucks so hard" article is the kind of talk I'm trying to turnaround. The first sentence of that article causes a loss of credibility. Look at his entire guest list and then see whether you like him or not, it's well rounded.im not saying he's the Messiah, but who else is trying to makes real bridge akkad is literally IMO trying to make that uncrossable line. Nothing happens immediately. Plus Twitter is not a great platform since their censorship isn't even a big secret.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

Mario wrote:
(On Sam Harris) He gets called out for generalising statements like any other pundit who say the same stupid things. I'm an atheist but the dude is not really that reasonable and unbiased as people want to believe and has a strange PhD thesis. I wouldn't really hold him up as either rational or trustworthy, he has his own quite narrow minded agenda.

...

]I'll just leave this here about Rubin and the "invites everyone" bit: https://twitter.com/RubinOfAkkad/status/847843337713405952 (direct link to the image).

So you rail against Sam Harris as being irrational and untrustworthy with a narrow minded agenda, and then you present us with this gem of a critiique against Dave Rubin. Here's the lead:

Why Exactly Dave Rubin Sucks so Hard: A Gaze into the Abyss

I get alot of gak for criticizing Dave Rubin so much, which i confusing since he sucks in such a public, visibile way. So I am going to present my case in the form of statements from Person A, a dipgak, and rebuttals by an able-brained human.

Yeah, that sounds rational, trustworthy. and open-minded.

Perhaps you should apply the same critiques you hold for people like Sam Harris to the horsegak you are allowing yourself to get sucked into on Twitter.

Dave Rubin has said he invites regressives on his show, but they won't take him up on it. I'm inclined to believe him unless there is some actual evidence to the contrary. Juveniles on twitter throwing temper tantrums is not your best foot to stand on here, I'd suggest.

Dude beat me again, and a bit clearer imo. Hard to reply right on my tablet.

Hmmm... what I find extrange, its not the criticism of the censorship that we have today, because it exist. Its the fact that the Right has now take the place of the victim in all of this.


Censorship comes as a result of a dominant power or culture. 30-40 years ago, the one in power was a more Right culture (At least in spain) with a much more influence of the Christian Church. Political Correctness has always existed, it was just about different things.

I'm not saying this about people in this thread, I'm talking in general. But when on internet or TV I saw many people with a rigth-wing ideology talking about free speech, and censorship, and playing the role of the victim... Personally, I think that really the only that they want its to be in power to dictate what to censor.

This its the hypocrisy that upset me. People playing the victim when, if where the ones in power, they will totally do the same that they are critizing. Recently in Spain we had have a case, where a radical-christian organization began a very polemic campaing against Transexual people and say that they where being censored, when they actively try to censor thinks like Ads on TV with homosexual parents, etc... hypocrisy is one of the very few things that really make me angry.

I'm very convinced that in 20-30 years, the ideologys more on the Right will rule again the "culture wars" (Thats is a fact, we only need to see that the younger generation its more right minded than his parents). Personally, I'm not very worried. Fundamental rights that we have achieved like same sex marriage, etc... I don't think can be reverted without a very big investment, at least in my country. I'm more worried about the collapse of the European Union and the devaluation of the Euro

 Galas wrote:
Hmmm... what I find extrange, its not the criticism of the censorship that we have today, because it exist. Its the fact that the Right has now take the place of the victim in all of this.


Censorship comes as a result of a dominant power or culture. 30-40 years ago, the one in power was a more Right culture (At least in spain) with a much more influence of the Christian Church. Political Correctness has always existed, it was just about different things.

I'm not saying this about people in this thread, I'm talking in general. But when on internet or TV I saw many people with a rigth-wing ideology talking about free speech, and censorship, and playing the role of the victim... Personally, I think that really the only that they want its to be in power to dictate what to censor.

This its the hypocrisy that upset me. People playing the victim when, if where the ones in power, they will totally do the same that they are critizing. Recently in Spain we had have a case, where a radical-christian organization began a very polemic campaing against Transexual people and say that they where being censored, when they actively try to censor thinks like Ads on TV with homosexual parents, etc... hypocrisy is one of the very few things that really make me angry.

I'm very convinced that in 20-30 years, the ideologys more on the Right will rule again the "culture wars" (Thats is a fact, we only need to see that the younger generation its more right minded than his parents). Personally, I'm not very worried. Fundamental rights that we have achieved like same sex marriage, etc... I don't think can be reverted without a very big investment, at least in my country. I'm more worried about the collapse of the European Union and the devaluation of the Euro

Censorship is a tool many groups in power want to try to employ. Now it's a tool to prevent open conversation. I agree though. I just want it to stop. Quit denigrating people who don't agree with you. Accept it, disengage and live your life.

 redleger wrote:
1. Libertarians are not liberals. That's not what I said. Classic liberals are real liberals aka Democrats. I am libertarian, not a Democrat.

And Clinton was the mainstream choice of the democrats, endorsed overwhelmingly by the party leadership/major donors/etc. You can't simultaneously claim that Clinton is part of the "regressive left" and "real liberals" are democrats.

2.Sam Harris is misquoted on his stance by regressives often, and he made a fair statement that has nothing to do with racism. In his main example of airport security he says why is Granny, who is 70 yrs old being being randomly selected for checks, when it is possibly a waisted of resources, and instead someone like himself could be screened instead. His conclusion is because the TSA is so worried about offending people and representing a fairness, which of it self is not fair, that they will screen obviously non radicalized people like Granny instead of men and women who would not be so easily dismissed as possible radicalized people. I watched his whole explanation instead of taking people's word for it. It is a fair point, agree or disagree with it that's fine but it's not racist, and instead of having the conversation about it, saying he is racist is literally the regressive tactic.

No, no misquoting is necessary, his position is both stupid and racist.

It's racist because it assumes that you can look at a person and tell by the color of their skin (since you can't know their religious/political beliefs) whether they're a lower or higher security risk, an assumption that only works if you believe that "Muslim-looking" people are a higher security risk than older white people. Without racist beliefs you have no way to get to the idea that certain people are "obviously non-radicalized" because determining someone's level of radicalization requires a level of interaction with them that isn't possible in a security context.

It's stupid because it tells the terrorists exactly how to exploit your massive security hole, by finding bomb carriers/hijackers/etc that look like the low-threat stereotype. For example, now you just have to find a white 70-year old woman who is willing to carry a weapon past airport security for money, and deliver it to the actual hijacker who clears even the strictest security checks because they don't have anything to discover as they're going through the check. The obvious truth of the situation is that the best security system is one which applies to everyone equally, leaving no holes to exploit.

 Galas wrote:
Hmmm... what I find extrange, its not the criticism of the censorship that we have today, because it exist. Its the fact that the Right has now take the place of the victim in all of this.


Censorship comes as a result of a dominant power or culture. 30-40 years ago, the one in power was a more Right culture (At least in spain) with a much more influence of the Christian Church. Political Correctness has always existed, it was just about different things.

I'm not saying this about people in this thread, I'm talking in general. But when on internet or TV I saw many people with a rigth-wing ideology talking about free speech, and censorship, and playing the role of the victim... Personally, I think that really the only that they want its to be in power to dictate what to censor.

This its the hypocrisy that upset me. People playing the victim when, if where the ones in power, they will totally do the same that they are critizing. Recently in Spain we had have a case, where a radical-christian organization began a very polemic campaing against Transexual people and say that they where being censored, when they actively try to censor thinks like Ads on TV with homosexual parents, etc... hypocrisy is one of the very few things that really make me angry.

I'm very convinced that in 20-30 years, the ideologys more on the Right will rule again the "culture wars" (Thats is a fact, we only need to see that the younger generation its more right minded than his parents). Personally, I'm not very worried. Fundamental rights that we have achieved like same sex marriage, etc... I don't think can be reverted without a very big investment, at least in my country. I'm more worried about the collapse of the European Union and the devaluation of the Euro

over in the states the right actually banned the word climate change and a few other words along those lines. Florida led that insanity and they'll be the first state to suffer the consequences. But the right ignores all that and just points to the left, "how dare they ask me not to say such racist things!"

 redleger wrote:
I am for free speech. Full stop.

No you aren't, as clearly demonstrated by your outrage about calling Sam Harris a racist. If you're genuinely in favor of free speech, full stop, then the accusations of racism are just more free speech and it's absurd to call the exercise of free speech "censorship". The truth here is that, like most of the FREEZE PEACH SJWS RUIN EVERYTHING crowd, you're in favor of creating safe spaces where ideas you agree with aren't criticized too harshly and have no problem with trying to pressure people you disagree with to stop speaking.

 Peregrine wrote:

 redleger wrote:
I am for free speech. Full stop.

No you aren't, as clearly demonstrated by your outrage about calling Sam Harris a racist. If you're genuinely in favor of free speech, full stop, then the accusations of racism are just more free speech and it's absurd to call the exercise of free speech "censorship". The truth here is that, like most of the FREEZE PEACH SJWS RUIN EVERYTHING crowd, you're in favor of creating safe spaces where ideas you agree with aren't criticized too harshly and have no problem with trying to pressure people you disagree with to stop speaking.

I'm not outraged. I think your argument is valid minus the racist part. Offering loopholes is bad, but I have a counter argument to yours. By saying let's talk without the name calling, I think there is a lot that can me discussed, learned and problems can be solved. The discussion tends to end when you lead with you're a racist because I don't like what you are saying. I'm not saying you can't say it, I am however offering a different option.

 redleger wrote:
The discussion tends to end when you lead with you're a racist because I don't like what you are saying.

Which isn't what is being said. How many times do we have to point that out?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
The discussion tends to end when you lead with you're a racist because I don't like what you are saying.

Which isn't what is being said. How many times do we have to point that out?

It wasn't pointed out. I read his statement. I don't agree with it. If you can't argue a stance without calling someone X it's hard to defend your position. He had perfectly valid points on why Sam Harris may be wrong, that could well have been debated without calling him a derogatory name. Why is that so hard to understand?

 redleger wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
The discussion tends to end when you lead with you're a racist because I don't like what you are saying.

Which isn't what is being said. How many times do we have to point that out?

It wasn't pointed out. I read his statement. I don't agree with it. If you can't argue a stance without calling someone X it's hard to defend your position. He had perfectly valid points on why Sam Harris may be wrong, that could well have been debated without calling him a derogatory name. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not, but when you make statements about an entire religion of 2 million people based on the actions of less than 1% of the entire religion, you come off as a racist, but islam isn't a race, so bigot is the proper word to use.

a more accurate generalization about their entire religion is, islam is the religion of doctors. But that one never seems to get mentioned for some reason, but a smaller percent of muslims blow up a few things and there goes sam talking out his ass about the evils of islam. If you lead off insulting an entire religion, you can't follow up with, "well don't call me a derogatory name, I'm allowed to say derogatory things about an entire religion"

 redleger wrote:
If you can't argue a stance without calling someone X it's hard to defend your position.

My stance is "Sam Harris is a racist ". I've defended my position by pointing out the racist beliefs that he proudly advocates. I've also stated and defended the entirely independent position that Sam Harris is clueless about security and his proposal would be a terrible idea. But I see no reason that I should have to pretend that the first position doesn't exist and only argue for the second.

And really, where does this rule end? If a KKK member shows up am I still obligated to pretend that they aren't a racist, or am I allowed to state the obvious fact that they're a racist and a terrible person?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's not, but when you make statements about an entire religion of 2 million people based on the actions of less than 1% of the entire religion, you come off as a racist, but islam isn't a race, so bigot is the proper word to use.

It's also a racist statement, because his proposed security program can't make decisions based on religion (after all, it's very easy to lie about one's religion at a security checkpoint). It's based entirely on looking at someone, noticing that they have darker skin and look like they're from the middle east, and selecting them for extra security screening as a potential Islamic terrorist.

Ok, so since we are going down this road, here is his discussion on his airport security statement. Not sure where racism comes into play​.

https://youtu.be/EsVtM0RFQJI

It's a short vid.

This is a very spiky problem. Because, I understand the fact that if you "inspect" people based in the probability that you have a higger change of finding criminals with people of X profile (Black skin, man, gipsy, arabic, etc...) , in a way, its more reasonable because mathematically a member of that group its more probable to be a criminal.

But now, in the other way Redleger, this just go against what you said before, of not marginalising people. Just as White Males shoudln't be marginalised as a group, the fact that you put an X in some ethnic, religious, etc... groups because is a fact that a bigger percentage of people in that group can commit X crimmes you are searching for, its still a form or marginalising that group. Because innocent people its paying for the crimes of others, not only in the fact that they have a bigger chance of being inspected without reasons, but because all the social prejudices that things brings to you.

I can totally understand bot sides in this issue. And being honest, I can't figure what could be better in the long run.

For example, ALL of the terrorist attacks of this past years in Europe have been made by people with the nationality of the country where they attacked, not refugees, just radicalized people, normally of second or third generation of inmigrants.

 redleger wrote:
Not sure where racism comes into play​.

Not sure why you don't understand when I've said it multiple times already: the test advocated is "does this person look Muslim, or do they look like a non-Muslim". This is entirely based on superficial external characteristics like skin color, justified by racist stereotypes about how such things can tell you anything useful about what kind of person they are. A middle-eastern person gets the extra security, an old white woman doesn't. If you aren't using racist stereotypes then looking at a person at an airport security checkpoint tells you nothing about their threat level, and everyone should get the same treatment. No extra screening for people who "look like terrorists", no special easy way through for people who don't fit the stereotypical image of a terrorist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Not sure where racism comes into play​.

Not sure why you don't understand when I've said it multiple times already: the test advocated is "does this person look Muslim, or do they look like a non-Muslim". This is entirely based on superficial external characteristics like skin color, justified by racist stereotypes about how such things can tell you anything useful about what kind of person they are. A middle-eastern person gets the extra security, an old white woman doesn't.

What I'm saying is if you watch the vid Muslim and skin color are never mentioned. It's about bang for the buck and making no allusions on waisting certain resources in the interest of fairness. I am not saying it's not easy to poke holes in his plan as is. I am saying I could poke holes in his plan after listening to him speak, and not use any pejoratives. I think in this we are just going to disagree. I'm ok with that, because that's ok.

And, because I forgot before, in airports you don't only search for muslims terrorist, no? They search for smuglers, drugs, etc... and that kind of things has a broader spectrum of people that can try to do it.

So that little girl that comes back from vacations in California maybe try to bring to his home state something more that just souvenirs... Thinking about this, with 0 knowledge how this securty matters, so my opinion has 0 value, I think that the random inspections are better to the security, at least, in a general sense. If you are going against X type of crime that has a bigger percentage of being commited by X group, then going against a specific group can be more efective, but as I said before, it brings to the table all the marginalisation problems, etc...


But this its offtopic!