Liberals, please stop allowing Authoritarians to hijack the Left.

Feb 3, 2018
2,682
2,568
360
32
USA
they don't take into account the positions within society that their ancestors have placed upon them and more have been trying to equate their supposed plights to that of minorities.
You're still at this? You don't think white people have ever considered what 'their ancestors' have done to minorities? Seriously? What you are saying is that you know the racial/racist introspection that 'most' white people have gone through. That's....... fine. Just don't presume to know what I think about the topic. Because that is what you did there. It's something I have thought a lot about.


Let me share some personal info. My Dad is black and has dealt with racism at almost all points in his life. He's a successful business man today that has been called a "Nigger" almost 30 times that he can recount. To try and keep him from dreaming as a child, to being refused jobs, to just trying to buy a house. One of my cousins was shot without question by a white cop because they mistook him for being someone else though he didn't even match nearly the same height or wearing similar clothes to a witness. His mother overheard the cop laugh with others at the scene as if it's was no big deal. When takened to court, they ruled it an accident. I myself have experienced moments personally when those around me weren't sure of my makeup would get comfortable and behave in racist manners.
And here you give a personal example. Fine. But you previously said this.....

I'm truly sorry for your loss, but that doens't fit the scope of what I was conveying. This is more of an isolated incident. That said, there is a pain (like mass genocide) that other ethnicity's endure and follows with them that hasn't been faced by the group with the most inherent advatages within our industrialized society (sociology). I'm half white and black. I've had the opportunity to witness both sides and have seen some absolutely disgusting things commited to minorities that most Whites can't sympathize with or are contributing. I don't wish ethnicity was a social issue, but it is and it vary's from group to group. It's really bothering when some can try to say that their pain or issues are the same under certain situations.
So YOUR personal experience is some how MORE 'painful' because what the other poster experienced wasn't the same?

....Its just more bullshit my dude.
 
Nov 25, 2015
5,394
1,730
450
You don't think white people have ever considered what 'their ancestors' have done to minorities?
I don’t get why people keep hanging onto the past which did not involve them. Sure people were treated badly before but it holds no relevancy today, holding grudges especially over something you weren’t alive to witness is just wasted energy.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Whataburger
Feb 3, 2018
2,682
2,568
360
32
USA
I don’t get why people keep hanging onto the past which did not involve them. Sure people were treated badly before but it holds no relevancy today, holding grudges especially over something you weren’t alive to witness is just wasted energy.
I agree 100%, but it is part of our collective history so we should at least be knowledgeable/acknowledge it. And I think everyone does.
 
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
I don’t get why people keep hanging onto the past which did not involve them. Sure people were treated badly before but it holds no relevancy today, holding grudges especially over something you weren’t alive to witness is just wasted energy.
I agree with that when it comes to the confederate statues. Tear those motherfuckers down.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
You fail to comprehend the point I was making and I don't know what more to say. If you want to take it that way, go ahead.
I comprehend just fine. People are aware of the history. But at the same time prosecuting the sins of the father is not right. Personally I'm the descendant of Polish immigrants who were themselves shit on, and had zero part in ever subjugating anybody. The battle has always been for equality. Why now are some pounding the table for regressing back to focusing on skin color and not equality? Identity politics is a loser. Race Bait Incorporated is a loser.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,023
2,914
360
You're still at this? You don't think white people have ever considered what 'their ancestors' have done to minorities? Seriously? What you are saying is that you know the racial/racist introspection that 'most' white people have gone through. That's....... fine. Just don't presume to know what I think about the topic. Because that is what you did there. It's something I have thought a lot about.

And here you give a personal example. Fine. But you previously said this.....

So YOUR personal experience is some how MORE 'painful' because what the other poster experienced wasn't the same?

....Its just more bullshit my dude.
I will not lie, I am still a bit miffed that they claimed such. However, every post they have made since then has just doubled down on that ignorant and intolerant rhetoric and at this point I am not sure if it is worth it to debate them.

I agree with that when it comes to the confederate statues. Tear those motherfuckers down.
I disagree with that. While the statues should not be up as monuments to their ideals/goals, they should be placed in museums and taught why they did what they did, the actions they took and why that is not the path that should be taken.
 

shpankey

not an idiot
Jun 6, 2004
10,640
87
1,475
Ok.
I disagree with that. While the statues should not be up as monuments to their ideals/goals, they should be placed in museums and taught why they did what they did, the actions they took and why that is not the path that should be taken.
Well said... we truly need to learn from our history as humans, and in my mind, we also need to trust our youth in what they can learn about such matters. Frame the information, sure, but to totally obscure it is a huge mistake.
 
Aug 2, 2015
4,658
290
335
Sounds like discrimination. Institutionalized racism has never been experienced by white people in America. So his statement was 100% correct, you or any white person has no clue what's it's like to be born with the cards stacked against you only because of the color of your skin.
Racism doesn't need to be systemic/institutionalized to be racism. Otherwise a literall KKK member stops being racist the moment he moves to Zimbabwe (a country with institutionalized anti-white racism).
 
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
You seriously need to go back to the start of this conversation in this thread.

But to entertain you just this one more

From wikipedia



Guess what group falls under any of those catagories? Particularly race religion and ethnic origin? Add in a bonus minority group too. That's right, Nazis! So guess what? Calling them out and hating on them for being the jew hating white supremacists they are is also Hate speech! Wow, funny how that works isn't it?

Why am I pointing this out? Because when you're faced with absurd bullshit that anything and everything that doesn't agree with the leftiest of the leftest lefties is "hate speech" the only recourse is to take their own level of absurd bullshit and turn it against them.

Do I actually think hating nazis is "hate speech"? No.



And guess what, race doesn't change that.

What does change it, is putting in the effort to pull yourself out of poverty. Unfortunately, because everyone under 30 these days has been brought up to accept participant trophies and everyone is a winner attitudes, the majority just think the world owes them everything and if they don't get it, it isn't their fault. It's the fault of what ever white man patriarchy capitalist bullshit you want to dream up on that particular day.

Being a pouty child won't get you anywhere in the real world. Hard work will.

Now, WAS there broad and widespread institutional racism? Yes. Are its effects still felt today? Of course. [1] Is the solution in victim culture bullshit and identity politics? No.

[1] i.e the discrepancy between median wealth of minority groups. This will shrink under equality of opportunity but to attempt to force equality of outcome is a misguided venture because to achieve it requires systemic racism against the majority.



First link cites immigration, not race. Would point to nationalism.

Second link cites "whitening" as things such as removing previous employment experience and "whitened" first name.

As for the harsher disciplines, studies cites names and tries to link that to race. This isn't even getting into the fact that black people commit a disproportionately high amount of crime which would make the idea of black students more likely being punished seem less of a race thing than anything.
It appears that you do not understand the definition you're quoting. You do realise what "on the basis of" means, right? Hate speech isn't simply speech that attacks a person who has one of those attributes. It is speech that is specifically attacks a person on the basis of/because of/according to those attributes. Therefore, if I called a homosexual nazi a piece of murderous scum who should die in prison, that is not hate speech. However, if I called the same homosexual nazi a bunch of homophobic slurs, that would be hate speech. I hope this explains things to you. The idea that "hate speech" is something owned by lefties doesn't really make sense to me when it's enshrined in the laws of so many countries. Maybe your argument should instead be, "I think people use the term hate speech too liberally."

"What does change it, is putting in the effort to pull yourself out of poverty. Unfortunately, because everyone under 30 these days has been brought up to accept participant trophies and everyone is a winner attitudes, the majority just think the world owes them everything and if they don't get it, it isn't their fault. It's the fault of what ever white man patriarchy capitalist bullshit you want to dream up on that particular day."

I see this argument a lot. Aside from the baseless generalisation of a generation who has to deal with ever-rising house prices and ever stagnating wages, made often by generations who don't fully appreciate how easy they had it in certain aspects. It rings specifically false because it implies that people aren't working hard, that they're just sitting on their couches and complaining, when they're really working longer or the same hours as their predecessors only to make the same or less amount of money, with which they can afford way less because things like rent are way more expensive now. Also, it implies that working hard should be a prerequisite to pointing out that the unfairness of the current systems that surround us. It is not. This is all just the "fuck you, got mine" train of thought, it's downplaying the struggle faced by others in order to further a mythology of one's success. Others become weak, and by comparison, we look strong.

"Now, WAS there broad and widespread institutional racism? Yes. Are its effects still felt today? Of course. [1] Is the solution in victim culture bullshit and identity politics? No.

[1] i.e the discrepancy between median wealth of minority groups. This will shrink under equality of opportunity but to attempt to force equality of outcome is a misguided venture because to achieve it requires systemic racism against the majority."

If the majority are being treated better than the minority, then there is no true equality without the majority giving up some of that better treatment. Of course in that situation, if you're in the majority it will feel as if you're losing something, because you are losing something, but you should not have had that thing in the first place.

In my mind as a society we're not even at the point of discussing "equality of outcome", we don't even have equal opportunities yet.

"First link cites immigration, not race. Would point to nationalism." Most minorities born in western countries are still most likely to have ethnic sounding names, so this does affect minorites.

"Second link cites "whitening" as things such as removing previous employment experience and "whitened" first name." What's your point? How does this invalidate or change the way we should look at this study.

"As for the harsher disciplines, studies cites names and tries to link that to race." Yes, we're talking about ethnic sounding names, which commonly are linked to specifc races. "This isn't even getting into the fact that black people commit a disproportionately high amount of crime which would make the idea of black students more likely being punished seem less of a race thing than anything." This makes it sound like you didn't even read the study.
 
Likes: 404Ender
Aug 2, 2015
4,658
290
335
If that's the case their racism wouldn't matter. It'd be irrelevant.
It would matter in how they percieve the world and interact with other people. If one assumes you need systemic part for it to be racism then it makes no sense to call anyone racist really, since nobody is responsible for entire system.
 
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
It would matter in how they percieve the world and interact with other people. If one assumes you need systemic part for it to be racism then it makes no sense to call anyone racist really, since nobody is responsible for entire system.
In my personal opinion, it's the full context around the racism that makes it so awful as it relates to minorities. Systemic racism is part of that context. History is part of that context. There's a difference between my girlfriend calling me a complete idiot, and my boss calling me a complete idiot. Context can provide weight to words and actions. I think that's why racist things said to minorities tend to carry more weight. That doesn't mean that saying something racist to a white person is good or doesn't count, it just doesn't have the same context.
 
Likes: bigedole
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
No, you're absolutely right. Using slurs is definitely worse than wishing death upon somebody. I think that British stand-up comedian should be prosecuted for hate speech!
Come on. That wasn't even the argument made. I was simply explaining what hate speech is to another poster. We do have laws against Verbal abuse over here in the UK, so any speech made in public with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress leaves you open to prosecution. We're not playing a "which one is worse" game here.
 
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,392
245
I was simply explaining what hate speech is to another poster. We do have laws against Verbal abuse over here in the UK, so any speech made in public with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress leaves you open to prosecution. We're not playing a "which one is worse" game here.
Hence why your example was preposterous.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
3,998
1,039
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
It appears that you do not understand the definition you're quoting. You do realise what "on the basis of" means, right? Hate speech isn't simply speech that attacks a person who has one of those attributes. It is speech that is specifically attacks a person on the basis of/because of/according to those attributes. Therefore, if I called a homosexual nazi a piece of murderous scum who should die in prison, that is not hate speech. However, if I called the same homosexual nazi a bunch of homophobic slurs, that would be hate speech.
Unless said nazi actually committed murder, that would be hate speech.

And the reason "hate speech laws" are absurd is because of the ridiculous slippery slope they create.

Free speech is patently better because ideas have to stand entirely on their own merit.

I see this argument a lot. Aside from the baseless generalisation of a generation who has to deal with ever-rising house prices and ever stagnating wages, made often by generations who don't fully appreciate how easy they had it in certain aspects. It rings specifically false because it implies that people aren't working hard, that they're just sitting on their couches and complaining, when they're really working longer or the same hours as their predecessors only to make the same or less amount of money, with which they can afford way less because things like rent are way more expensive now. Also, it implies that working hard should be a prerequisite to pointing out that the unfairness of the current systems that surround us. It is not. This is all just the "fuck you, got mine" train of thought, it's downplaying the struggle faced by others in order to further a mythology of one's success. Others become weak, and by comparison, we look strong.
And how hard do you think this argument has failed?

1) I am under 30

2) I'm hardly successful

But congrats on attempting the victim narrative.

If the majority are being treated better than the minority, then there is no true equality without the majority giving up some of that better treatment. Of course in that situation, if you're in the majority it will feel as if you're losing something, because you are losing something, but you should not have had that thing in the first place.
"true equality"

Oh so you're an equality of outcome type.

Communism is that way >>>


In my mind as a society we're not even at the point of discussing "equality of outcome", we don't even have equal opportunities yet.
Equality of outcome isn't even worth wasting the internet bits discussing.

And as I've said, the opportunities are there if you actually want them and are willing to work for them.



"First link cites immigration, not race. Would point to nationalism." Most minorities born in western countries are still most likely to have ethnic sounding names, so this does affect minorites.

"Second link cites "whitening" as things such as removing previous employment experience and "whitened" first name." What's your point? How does this invalidate or change the way we should look at this study.

"As for the harsher disciplines, studies cites names and tries to link that to race." Yes, we're talking about ethnic sounding names, which commonly are linked to specifc races. "This isn't even getting into the fact that black people commit a disproportionately high amount of crime which would make the idea of black students more likely being punished seem less of a race thing than anything." This makes it sound like you didn't even read the study.
1) Immigrants... They come in all shapes, sizes and colours. So it's not a race thing...

2) Because it's an absurdly flimsy premise to base a study on

3) More likely to commit crime, more likely to misbehave, more likely to get punished. Not a hard train of thought to follow.
 
Jun 6, 2004
858
12
0
I disagree with the OP's premise that American liberalism has been hijacked by authoritarianism. The American right/conservatives/alt right currently seem led by an inexperienced, thin-skinned wannabe fascist and the left are merely in PR disarray after shrilling crying out the dangers of alt right misogny/white supremacy over the last 2 years to the point where some of the politically exhausted/naive have accused them of being too vocal. However there is (rightfully) no tolerance for intolerance on the American left as it provides no benefits in an inclusive society to offer hate any meaningful platform :)
 
Last edited:
Jan 26, 2018
698
712
190
I disagree with the OP's premise that American liberalism has been hijacked by authoritarianism. The American right/conservatives/alt right currently seem led by an inexperienced, thin-skinned wannabe fascist and the left are merely in PR disarray after shrilling crying out the dangers of alt right misogny/white supremacy over the last 2 years to the point where some of the politically exhausted/naive have accused them of being too vocal. However there is (rightfully) no tolerance for intolerance on the American left as it provides no benefits in an inclusive society to offer hate any meaningful platform :)
Would you like to debate this on discord/skype? I have the opposite view and would love to talk to you about our different point of views.
 
Likes: TrainedRage
Feb 17, 2018
246
108
190
I think a big issue is that normal conservatives, the nine crazy sort seem to be on the retreat and won't speak up.

At the same time, much of the centre and centre left are too scared to say much.

What we are left with is two extremes going at it while everyone else is too scared to get get caught up in the harassment and bullying both sides like to use.

Having said that, the extreme left are not as dangerous as the extreme/alt right so im not making a "both sides" arguement... Or at least I hope not!
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
Why? I am someone on the right who wants to debate you on your claim? Do you think I am an authoritarian? I would love to debate and show you that the right is not what you think.
I don't blame him for not being interested in starting up a one on one sidebar with a stranger from the internet. Whatever you want to discuss, just do it here. Then other people can chime in too where appropriate.
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Sep 4, 2013
14,052
103
600
I disagree with the OP's premise that American liberalism has been hijacked by authoritarianism. The American right/conservatives/alt right currently seem led by an inexperienced, thin-skinned wannabe fascist and the left are merely in PR disarray after shrilling crying out the dangers of alt right misogny/white supremacy over the last 2 years to the point where some of the politically exhausted/naive have accused them of being too vocal. However there is (rightfully) no tolerance for intolerance on the American left as it provides no benefits in an inclusive society to offer hate any meaningful platform :)
Who determines what is and isn't hate? Random people on the internet?
Left media is flooded with a plethora of takes on "why white people are the problem", some with valid points, and some not. My question is, what if the majority of people consider that hate? Should we not allow it to have a meaningful platform?

There's a tipping point, where "no platform for hate" becomes "no platform for people I disagree with", and a healthy handful of people have already crossed that line in their beliefs.

Even to the point that they believe that a single infraction on the "left approved" inclusion test, you're never to be considered a reliable source, and your opinion is no longer valid. I see it all the time. Someone posts "interesting article #1", and the first reply is "OP you just posted an article from someone from the Alt right!!" Even though that person might be very far from the alt right, their opinions are no longer considered to be valuable in any way.

There's a severe hypocrisy to the left's inclusive society.
 
Likes: Kadayi
Jun 6, 2004
858
12
0
Who determines what is and isn't hate? Random people on the internet?
No, I would not leave people on the internet in charge of that. Unfortunately it is too easy online for alt right/russian gov. operatives/American gov. operatives/etc. to influence general discussions on platforms like Twitter/facebook with bots and false accounts.

There's a tipping point, where "no platform for hate" becomes "no platform for people I disagree with", and a healthy handful of people have already crossed that line in their beliefs.
Any ideology can be taken to extremes. However there should be no tolerance for intolerance, we must be firm in keeping an open discourse on inclusivity/diversity because hategroups like KKK/ISIS do not deserve any platform to spread their hateful message.

Even to the point that they believe that a single infraction on the "left approved" inclusion test, you're never to be considered a reliable source, and your opinion is no longer valid. I see it all the time. Someone posts "interesting article #1", and the first reply is "OP you just posted an article from someone from the Alt right!!" Even though that person might be very far from the alt right, their opinions are no longer considered to be valuable in any way.

There's a severe hypocrisy to the left's inclusive society.
Some people get zealous and go too far, I know. They become shrill, crying out again and again in fear that we are in dangerous political times and need to pass "purity tests". I wish they would open a dialogue with true moderates more. BUT an important point and one of the big problems with the modern American left is that the American right no longer seems interested in an intellectually honest debate. Figures on the right often twist data all out of proportion, are poorly sourced and/or just make things up to fit their politics (like Trump's global warming nonsense and his swampy cabinet's foibles). It has exhausted the left to have to continually debate proven facts and science so some have given up trying to educate the other side at all except with (what might be lazily considered one of the few remaining effective alternatives) shame-tactics and unfortunately some moderates (such as yourself?) get caught up in the verbal cross-fire. It's a tricky situation, but I'm hoping that better public/private education, advancing technology and different elected officials will give the general populace better mental/social tools with which to debate going forward :)
 
Likes: Ray Wonder
Apr 6, 2014
3,946
31
310
Texas
I think these liberals who have been told to meet white aggression with empathy are seeing little benefit to it, and notice we're reaching a "cultural precipice." Whether that precipice was in-part due to escalating debates of identity politics, I do not know.

But, I have to be honest, if you're living in 2018 and you respond to obviously racially-charged cruelty and intolerance to blacks with "god damn liberals," you're likely just an asshole. That doesn't mean you can't speak your mind. No one should put their hands on you for it; but, you should probably be shown the door.

Some mistreatment is just so fundamentally wrong to our civil liberties that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to brush it off, victim blame, or even scapegoat. If you're going to make a spicy joke, take notice of the temperature outside and make sure it isn't hot enough already. Read a room.

So, in other words, I kind of agree. Tensions are high right now and no one in power is doing anything to assuage concerns. If anything, they're creating more of a divide. Liberals will be more tolerant when they're shown less PoC death by people in power, first and foremost.
 
Last edited:
May 28, 2013
7,499
4
0
St. Ivalice
I see a lot of narrative crafting about this dangerous leftist extremism here, almost like an instruction manual written by an opponent saying how to beat them, wink wink. Evict the authoritarian left and you will beat the authoritarian right! Ha. There is a laser focus on party politics and tribalism, and I'm not buying it. Most of this country doesn't bother with self-labeling, they operate issue to issue, so this whole thing about putting attention to an authoritarian left and somehow 'ousting' them from liberalism is completely off-base.
 
Last edited:

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
3,998
1,039
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
No, I would not leave people on the internet in charge of that. Unfortunately it is too easy online for alt right/russian gov. operatives/American gov. operatives/etc. to influence general discussions on platforms like Twitter/facebook with bots and false accounts.
Tinfoil hats, get your tinfoil hats here!

Any ideology can be taken to extremes. However there should be no tolerance for intolerance, we must be firm in keeping an open discourse on inclusivity/diversity because hategroups like KKK/ISIS do not deserve any platform to spread their hateful message.
*cough* antifa/BLM/Feminazis *cough*

Some people get zealous and go too far, I know. They become shrill, crying out again and again in fear that we are in dangerous political times and need to pass "purity tests". I wish they would open a dialogue with true moderates more. BUT an important point and one of the big problems with the modern American left is that the American right no longer seems interested in an intellectually honest debate. Figures on the right often twist data all out of proportion, are poorly sourced and/or just make things up to fit their politics (like Trump's global warming nonsense and his swampy cabinet's foibles). It has exhausted the left to have to continually debate proven facts and science so some have given up trying to educate the other side at all except with (what might be lazily considered one of the few remaining effective alternatives) shame-tactics and unfortunately some moderates (such as yourself?) get caught up in the verbal cross-fire. It's a tricky situation, but I'm hoping that better public/private education, advancing technology and different elected officials will give the general populace better mental/social tools with which to debate going forward :)
A little bit of self awareness goes a long long way.

But, I have to be honest, if you're living in 2018 and you respond to obviously racially-charged cruelty and intolerance to blacks with "god damn liberals," you're likely just an asshole. That doesn't mean you can't speak your mind. No one should put their hands on you for it; but, you should probably be shown the door.
The problem is absolutely anything and everything gets attributed to racism these days for the purpose of pushing a victim narrative. Regardless of any and all other factors.

Didn't get that job? RACISM!!!!

Got punished in school? RACISM!!11!!!!!!

Didn't get that home loan? FUCKING RACISM1!1111!!!!1!!1!!*voice explodes*
 
Apr 6, 2014
3,946
31
310
Texas
The problem is absolutely anything and everything gets attributed to racism these days for the purpose of pushing a victim narrative. Regardless of any and all other factors.

Didn't get that job? RACISM!!!!

Got punished in school? RACISM!!11!!!!!!

Didn't get that home loan? FUCKING RACISM1!1111!!!!1!!1!!*voice explodes*
There will always be people attempting to use a larger issue for petty means. It's often blatant enough to ignore.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
I see a lot of narrative crafting about this dangerous leftist extremism here, almost like an instruction manual written by an opponent saying how to beat them, wink wink. Evict the authoritarian left and you will beat the authoritarian right! Ha. There is a laser focus on party politics and tribalism, and I'm not buying it. Most of this country doesn't bother with self-labeling, they operate issue to issue, so this whole thing about putting attention to an authoritarian left and somehow 'ousting' them from liberalism is completely off-base.
I mean, we have liberals here that are dismayed that this certain militant element has taken up "their" mantle, and even used it to bludgeon "their own" with purity testing and the like. How is that not a legitimate concern?
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,023
2,914
360
No, I would not leave people on the internet in charge of that. Unfortunately it is too easy online for alt right/russian gov. operatives/American gov. operatives/etc. to influence general discussions on platforms like Twitter/facebook with bots and false accounts.



Any ideology can be taken to extremes. However there should be no tolerance for intolerance, we must be firm in keeping an open discourse on inclusivity/diversity because hategroups like KKK/ISIS do not deserve any platform to spread their hateful message.
Yes, but who decides what is considered "intolerant"? What is considered a "hate group"? This is the issue that stems from authoritarian groups and those with similar mentalities. This is what plagued OldGaf and what currently plaques ResetEra. If you make a joke that someone in a minority finds offense in, you are labeled an intolerant bigot. If you don't say exactly what they suggest, you are liable to blamed for promoting misogyny/transphobia/etc. These are the same groups that would label GamerGate as a "hate group" and any of those who don't agree with them as promoters or liars.


Some people get zealous and go too far, I know. They become shrill, crying out again and again in fear that we are in dangerous political times and need to pass "purity tests". I wish they would open a dialogue with true moderates more. BUT an important point and one of the big problems with the modern American left is that the American right no longer seems interested in an intellectually honest debate. Figures on the right often twist data all out of proportion, are poorly sourced and/or just make things up to fit their politics (like Trump's global warming nonsense and his swampy cabinet's foibles). It has exhausted the left to have to continually debate proven facts and science so some have given up trying to educate the other side at all except with (what might be lazily considered one of the few remaining effective alternatives) shame-tactics and unfortunately some moderates (such as yourself?) get caught up in the verbal cross-fire. It's a tricky situation, but I'm hoping that better public/private education, advancing technology and different elected officials will give the general populace better mental/social tools with which to debate going forward :)
The same exact thing happens on the left. Research is poorly sourced, data is cherry picked, and things are made up to fit into their political viewpoints. I find it highly disingenuous that you would claim this is a right issue when it clearly happens on both sides.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
The same exact thing happens on the left. Research is poorly sourced, data is cherry picked, and things are made up to fit into their political viewpoints. I find it highly disingenuous that you would claim this is a right issue when it clearly happens on both sides.
This. The post this is responding to is absurdly and laughably biased.

The lunatic right and the lunatic left use essentially exactly the same tactics. The left may be even more insufferable because they have the added arrogance or their perceived moral high ground and "being on the right side of history". But at that point it's just splitting hairs. In so many ways they're two sides of the same coin.
 
Nov 12, 2009
9,701
597
705
Really interesting to read this thread. Can't find that I agree with either side since it seems that everything seems to be forced to the extreme on both ends. Maybe being a moderate this really puts me off as I feel there is always some room for middle ground somewhere. In this time in history it feels so much harder to find such a middle ground because people really refuse to give any leeway in their positions.
 
Likes: koosa
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
Really interesting to read this thread. Can't find that I agree with either side since it seems that everything seems to be forced to the extreme on both ends. Maybe being a moderate this really puts me off as I feel there is always some room for middle ground somewhere. In this time in history it feels so much harder to find such a middle ground because people really refuse to give any leeway in their positions.
You have people pointing out the most extreme of either side as a representation of a whole and justification of claiming one side to be quantitatively and morally worse.

Anyone looking to frame either side as "worse" but using its most extreme members aren't looking for actually rational discussion, they are looking to frame one side or the other rather than engage in genuine debate and discourse.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
You have people pointing out the most extreme of either side as a representation of a whole and justification of claiming one side to be quantitatively and morally worse.

Anyone looking to frame either side as "worse" but using its most extreme members aren't looking for actually rational discussion, they are looking to frame one side or the other rather than engage in genuine debate and discourse.
I'm not seeing too much of that here. Mostly people stating that both extremes are bad. Of course more of the discussion has centered on the left since the topic of the thread is delving into how the lunatic fringe has co-opted "the left" at large in some respects and in some venues (e.g. old-gaf and resetera). Most of the same criticisms apply to the lunatic right as well; I don't think many if any have denied that here.
 
Nov 12, 2009
9,701
597
705
You have people pointing out the most extreme of either side as a representation of a whole and justification of claiming one side to be quantitatively and morally worse.

Anyone looking to frame either side as "worse" but using its most extreme members aren't looking for actually rational discussion, they are looking to frame one side or the other rather than engage in genuine debate and discourse.
Don't make the quick mistake and assume that I am claiming that I am morally superior simply because I disagree with either sides extreme. The same mistake is often assumed of some sense of intellectual superiority. I claim neither of these things. I Just find this intriguing. Mainly trying to see other peoples point of views. Been moving around south america for the past 6 months and mind sets here are so vastly different.
 
May 28, 2013
7,499
4
0
St. Ivalice
I mean, we have liberals here that are dismayed that this certain militant element has taken up "their" mantle, and even used it to bludgeon "their own" with purity testing and the like. How is that not a legitimate concern?
It all seems very nebulous to me. There is no concrete target here - does the OP define what a militant or authoritarian left is? We know what the authoritarian right is as a definite entity - the alt right and white supremacists. I've not heard a consistent definition of an equivalent for the left, besides them seeming to exist on message boards. If it is Antifa, then I am unaware of their threat to the nation or their connection to 'liberals' for that matter, or events of terrorism attributed to them. I read the posts you're talking about and that just reinforces my point that what it means to be 'liberal' isn't a hard label like the OP suggests.
 
Oct 24, 2017
287
239
0
The authoritarian left and right both scare me.
The radical left seems like a more present threat with how they control college campuses, people's livelihoods via twitter, and so on.
They are controlling the message being delivered to an entire up and coming generation of adults. Silence and punch people you disagree with.

I'm so fortunate to have gone to a college that challenged my belief system and forced me to debate against the things I thought to be true.
It helped me to better understand others and better understand myself. The college hugboxes are sanctimonious twitter mobs are a real problem.
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
The Authoritarian Right is definitely scarier. At the moment, they have had a resurgence and now control all three branches of government and are doing the kinds of shit that authoritarians do when in power:
Dividing people, scapegoating groups (minorities in the case of the right) and acting to force those they disagree with into submission by
Trying to ban transgendered people from the military
Kicking out immigrants, even those brought here as kids
Scapegoating minorties and the poor and dismantling the social safety net
Raping and pillaging the environment
Taking control of the Supreme Court so that they can get gay marriage banned again and can force women to grow a fetus inside their body


The biggest problem with the authoritarian left is that they have succeeded in hijacking the left liberal monikers, transparently adopted hypocritical views that are in contrast to actual liberalism and doubly succeeded in repelling many moderates away from the Democratic Party so that the authoritarian right could rise to power.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2014
3,793
667
345
USA
We should all be wary of both sides citing extremes to villify anyone who does not go along with the agenda. However, it's distressing to see some in this thread discounting the very tangible reality that authoritarian beliefs and tactics have found purchase among the mainstream left.

As our last President watched his party continually lose their legislative authority, he turned increasingly to administrative rulemaking, circumventing the democratic process and chafing both the constitutional limits of his office and the boundaries of federalism. Last year, the chair of the DNC implied that faithful Roman Catholics have no place in their party or in society. During Amy Barret's confirmation proceedings in November, Senator Diane Feinstein expressly cited her faith as grounds for disqualifying her for public office. Unelected judges and administrative bodies are using the law to compel Christians to publicly disavow their faith's teachings on marriage and contraception. Interviewers are converting the neutral sanctuary of the free press into inquisition chambers to publicly shame dissenters. And the closed-minded insulation of universities is no longer debatable.

This is not a marginal fringe. These are elected officials, political appointees, the gatekeepers of higher learning and colossal media conglomerates all pushing larger government as a solution to every problem and driving anyone questioning this narrative out of the public square and locking them out of political participation. Using public office and other institutional power to suppress dissension is incompatible with Western liberalism.

The deplatforming of mainstream views should be intolerable to every American but the fact that it is sanctioning government policies which exceed our Constitution is particularly disturbing.
 
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
The Authoritarian Right is definitely scarier. At the moment, they have had a resurgence and now control all three branches of government and are doing the kinds of shit that authoritarians do when in power:
Dividing people, scapegoating groups (minorities in the case of the right) and acting to force those they disagree with into submission by
Trying to ban transgendered people from the military
Kicking out immigrants, even those brought here as kids
Scapegoating minorties and the poor and dismantling the social safety net
Raping and pillaging the environment
Taking control of the Supreme Court so that they can get gay marriage banned again and can force women to grow a fetus inside their body


The biggest problem with the authoritarian left is that they have succeeded in hijacking the left liberal monikers, transparently adopted hypocritical views that are in contrast to actual liberalism and doubly succeeded in repelling many moderates away from the Democratic Party so that the authoritarian right could rise to power.
I hope you realize that the counter argument to this is that the authoritarian left is scarier for many of the same reasons. Think about the most extreme positions of the left and then think how you would feel if you were taking that as an earnest position from what you assume is all left views on how people should believe and act. Not tell me those extreme beliefs are not a violation of constitutional rights?
 
Feb 3, 2018
2,682
2,568
360
32
USA
I hope you realize that the counter argument to this is that the authoritarian left is scarier for many of the same reasons. Think about the most extreme positions of the left and then think how you would feel if you were taking that as an earnest position from what you assume is all left views on how people should believe and act. Not tell me those extreme beliefs are not a violation of constitutional rights?
Shhh dont tell him that. He will post about us on ResetEra.