FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: I am lizard on March 31, 2015, 12:56:37 pm
-
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/03/30/3639736/purvi-patel-sentencing/ (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/03/30/3639736/purvi-patel-sentencing/)
Authorities claim woman kills her fetus use outdated and sketchy methods.
-
So the lesson here is:
1) Don't have sex.
2) Don't get pregnant.
If you transgressed on 1 and 2 and you were unlucky enough to miscarry, don't go to the ER or you might get arrested and go to prison for 20 years.
This has the makings of a public health crisis like we haven't seen since Roe v. Wade was ruled on.
-
BUT THERE'S NO WAR ON WOMEN!
-
Honestly, not surprised. This is Indiana we're talking about. You'd have to go south of the Mason-Dixon Line To find a more back-asswards state than them.
-
Honestly, not surprised. This is Indiana we're talking about. You'd have to go south of the Mason-Dixon Line To find a more back-asswards state than them.
No wonder they have to mooch of Illinois.
-
Honestly, not surprised. This is Indiana we're talking about. You'd have to go south of the Mason-Dixon Line To find a more back-asswards state than them.
No wonder they have to mooch of Illinois.
All I can say is that some days, I really hate my state.
This entire week has been one of those times.
In my defense, I sure as fuck didn't vote for Mike Pence.
-
Honestly, not surprised. This is Indiana we're talking about. You'd have to go south of the Mason-Dixon Line To find a more back-asswards state than them.
No wonder they have to mooch of Illinois.
All I can say is that some days, I really hate my state.
This entire week has been one of those times.
In my defense, I sure as fuck didn't vote for Mike Pence.
What part of the state are you from? I'm from the Chicagoland area (we get all the political ads for Illinois, and almost none for Indiana), and as bad as it can be here, I can't imagine what it must be like everywhere else in the state. According to my freshman English teacher, the rest of the state doesn't even like people from northwest Indiana that much, and was called a 'region rat' when she went to a state university further south.
-
You know, the majority of the U.S. population are Moderate to Left-Leaning, certainly not Teabagger material. We're winning the Culture War, already......but the majority refuse to vote. The Wingnuts, however, ALWAYS VOTE! If the majority of Americans voted for a change, THERE WOULD BE CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
But, nooooooooo.....we're all Mr./Ms. Voter Apathy or complaining that the Democratic candidate isn't "Lefty" enough or we don't have the energy to jump the extra hurdles to voting in place....or we're too busy or that we believe that "not voting" will "starve the beast" somehow.
I don't see the "beast" getting "starved". I see the beast grow stronger!
Look, I'm aware of the fraud. I'm aware of the voter ID laws, gerrymandering & other nonsense. I'm aware of corporate money getting into both sides.....but if you think that the GOP & Dems are exactly the same, you're crazy!
Yes, I'm aware that the Dems are mainly Moderate & Conservative while the GOP is Wingnut-Theofascist Nutso. Maybe Green Party folks should switch to Democratic and move the Dems Leftward that way.
Liberals, Moderates & Conservatives need to band together and vote the damned Wingnuts out! It needs to be known that the GOP/Tea Party is not Conservative, it is Wingnut.
If everyone voted, America would be Blue. If everyone voted, U.S. Politics would slowly move Left-Ward. If everyone voted, there would be balance & progress. The Eagle's right wing has gigantism while it's left wing has atrophied. It's body is mostly fine, though. The Eagle needs two healthy wings to work. When there's balance, the worse aspects of both are cancelled out.
Vote, America! *sigh*
-
You know, the majority of the U.S. population are Moderate to Left-Leaning, certainly not Teabagger material. We're winning the Culture War, already......but the majority refuse to vote. The Wingnuts, however, ALWAYS VOTE! If the majority of Americans voted for a change, THERE WOULD BE CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
But, nooooooooo.....we're all Mr./Ms. Voter Apathy or complaining that the Democratic candidate isn't "Lefty" enough or we don't have the energy to jump the extra hurdles to voting in place....or we're too busy or that we believe that "not voting" will "starve the beast" somehow.
I don't see the "beast" getting "starved". I see the beast grow stronger!
Look, I'm aware of the fraud. I'm aware of the voter ID laws, gerrymandering & other nonsense. I'm aware of corporate money getting into both sides.....but if you think that the GOP & Dems are exactly the same, you're crazy!
Yes, I'm aware that the Dems are mainly Moderate & Conservative while the GOP is Wingnut-Theofascist Nutso. Maybe Green Party folks should switch to Democratic and move the Dems Leftward that way.
Liberals, Moderates & Conservatives need to band together and vote the damned Wingnuts out! It needs to be known that the GOP/Tea Party is not Conservative, it is Wingnut.
If everyone voted, America would be Blue. If everyone voted, U.S. Politics would slowly move Left-Ward. If everyone voted, there would be balance & progress. The Eagle's right wing has gigantism while it's left wing has atrophied. It's body is mostly fine, though. The Eagle needs two healthy wings to work. When there's balance, the worse aspects of both are cancelled out.
Vote, America! *sigh*
In my opinion, the real problem is with the wingnuts. On both sides. One thing not a lot of people realize is that Occupy Wall Street failed partly because it was hijacked by radflakes.
-
You know, the majority of the U.S. population are Moderate to Left-Leaning, certainly not Teabagger material. We're winning the Culture War, already......but the majority refuse to vote. The Wingnuts, however, ALWAYS VOTE! If the majority of Americans voted for a change, THERE WOULD BE CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
But, nooooooooo.....we're all Mr./Ms. Voter Apathy or complaining that the Democratic candidate isn't "Lefty" enough or we don't have the energy to jump the extra hurdles to voting in place....or we're too busy or that we believe that "not voting" will "starve the beast" somehow.
I don't see the "beast" getting "starved". I see the beast grow stronger!
Look, I'm aware of the fraud. I'm aware of the voter ID laws, gerrymandering & other nonsense. I'm aware of corporate money getting into both sides.....but if you think that the GOP & Dems are exactly the same, you're crazy!
Yes, I'm aware that the Dems are mainly Moderate & Conservative while the GOP is Wingnut-Theofascist Nutso. Maybe Green Party folks should switch to Democratic and move the Dems Leftward that way.
Liberals, Moderates & Conservatives need to band together and vote the damned Wingnuts out! It needs to be known that the GOP/Tea Party is not Conservative, it is Wingnut.
If everyone voted, America would be Blue. If everyone voted, U.S. Politics would slowly move Left-Ward. If everyone voted, there would be balance & progress. The Eagle's right wing has gigantism while it's left wing has atrophied. It's body is mostly fine, though. The Eagle needs two healthy wings to work. When there's balance, the worse aspects of both are cancelled out.
Vote, America! *sigh*
In my opinion, the real problem is with the wingnuts. On both sides. One thing not a lot of people realize is that Occupy Wall Street failed partly because it was hijacked by radflakes.
Agreed. Moonbats & Wingnuts stifle everything! (Wingnuts are Hard-Right. Moonbats are Hard-Left). Although I'm sympathetic to the Hippies & New-Left of the 60s-70s (and see myself as a sort of 'NeoFlowerchild'), even I think that many of them were nutty. I've always been of the pragmatic philosophy of "Radical Change Via Moderate Means". Over-The-Top-Militant anything only hinders. You also need to appeal to as many as possible, even the "squares". We're all in this together!
-
You know, the majority of the U.S. population are Moderate to Left-Leaning, certainly not Teabagger material. We're winning the Culture War, already......but the majority refuse to vote. The Wingnuts, however, ALWAYS VOTE! If the majority of Americans voted for a change, THERE WOULD BE CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
But, nooooooooo.....we're all Mr./Ms. Voter Apathy or complaining that the Democratic candidate isn't "Lefty" enough or we don't have the energy to jump the extra hurdles to voting in place....or we're too busy or that we believe that "not voting" will "starve the beast" somehow.
I don't see the "beast" getting "starved". I see the beast grow stronger!
Look, I'm aware of the fraud. I'm aware of the voter ID laws, gerrymandering & other nonsense. I'm aware of corporate money getting into both sides.....but if you think that the GOP & Dems are exactly the same, you're crazy!
Yes, I'm aware that the Dems are mainly Moderate & Conservative while the GOP is Wingnut-Theofascist Nutso. Maybe Green Party folks should switch to Democratic and move the Dems Leftward that way.
Liberals, Moderates & Conservatives need to band together and vote the damned Wingnuts out! It needs to be known that the GOP/Tea Party is not Conservative, it is Wingnut.
If everyone voted, America would be Blue. If everyone voted, U.S. Politics would slowly move Left-Ward. If everyone voted, there would be balance & progress. The Eagle's right wing has gigantism while it's left wing has atrophied. It's body is mostly fine, though. The Eagle needs two healthy wings to work. When there's balance, the worse aspects of both are cancelled out.
Vote, America! *sigh*
In my opinion, the real problem is with the wingnuts. On both sides. One thing not a lot of people realize is that Occupy Wall Street failed partly because it was hijacked by radflakes.
That's a massive False equivalency. Left wing extremist in America wear Che Guevara t shirts and complain about "the system" (even the NBP just wave guns around and harasses people).
Right wing extremists deny people basic healthcare and suppress voters.
-
You know, the majority of the U.S. population are Moderate to Left-Leaning, certainly not Teabagger material. We're winning the Culture War, already......but the majority refuse to vote. The Wingnuts, however, ALWAYS VOTE! If the majority of Americans voted for a change, THERE WOULD BE CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!
But, nooooooooo.....we're all Mr./Ms. Voter Apathy or complaining that the Democratic candidate isn't "Lefty" enough or we don't have the energy to jump the extra hurdles to voting in place....or we're too busy or that we believe that "not voting" will "starve the beast" somehow.
I don't see the "beast" getting "starved". I see the beast grow stronger!
Look, I'm aware of the fraud. I'm aware of the voter ID laws, gerrymandering & other nonsense. I'm aware of corporate money getting into both sides.....but if you think that the GOP & Dems are exactly the same, you're crazy!
Yes, I'm aware that the Dems are mainly Moderate & Conservative while the GOP is Wingnut-Theofascist Nutso. Maybe Green Party folks should switch to Democratic and move the Dems Leftward that way.
Liberals, Moderates & Conservatives need to band together and vote the damned Wingnuts out! It needs to be known that the GOP/Tea Party is not Conservative, it is Wingnut.
If everyone voted, America would be Blue. If everyone voted, U.S. Politics would slowly move Left-Ward. If everyone voted, there would be balance & progress. The Eagle's right wing has gigantism while it's left wing has atrophied. It's body is mostly fine, though. The Eagle needs two healthy wings to work. When there's balance, the worse aspects of both are cancelled out.
Vote, America! *sigh*
In my opinion, the real problem is with the wingnuts. On both sides. One thing not a lot of people realize is that Occupy Wall Street failed partly because it was hijacked by radflakes.
That's a massive False equivalency. Left wing extremist in America wear Che Guevara t shirts and complain about "the system" (even the NBP just wave guns around and harasses people).
Right wing extremists deny people basic healthcare and suppress voters.
Oh, the American far-left is still very harmful, just more subtle about it.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
Less vague, please.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
Less vague, please.
Fair enough.
It's no secret that academia has a liberal bias. That's been the case since at least the Sixties. And this has led to some major problems in universities. According to a poll published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, more than a third of respondents admitted that they would discriminate against conservatives. Imagine if an academic said that about Latinos or gays!
Furthermore, this has a demonstrable negative impact in many fields of research. The social sciences, for example, suffer heavily from groupthink. Certain questions aren't asked, and certain answers aren't properly scrutinized. If you care about science, you should care about this problem.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
Less vague, please.
Fair enough.
It's no secret that academia has a liberal bias. That's been the case since at least the Sixties. And this has led to some major problems in universities. According to a poll published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, more than a third of respondents admitted that they would discriminate against conservatives. Imagine if an academic said that about Latinos or gays!
Furthermore, this has a demonstrable negative impact in many fields of research. The social sciences, for example, suffer heavily from groupthink. Certain questions aren't asked, and certain answers aren't properly scrutinized. If you care about science, you should care about this problem.
At least part of this belongs at the feet of the anti-intellectual movement that's been going on since around that time. Since professors have ultimate authority over who gets to be on the academic staff at a university, and people in general would prefer to associate with others who agree with them, that means that as fewer people with conservative views entered university, people with liberal views were hired into academic positions simply because there were more of them, and they in turn hired others with liberal views.
The unfortunate result of this is the ideological shift you mentioned.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
Less vague, please.
Fair enough.
It's no secret that academia has a liberal bias. That's been the case since at least the Sixties. And this has led to some major problems in universities. According to a poll published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, more than a third of respondents admitted that they would discriminate against conservatives. Imagine if an academic said that about Latinos or gays!
It's less of a liberal bias in academia and more of an anti-intellectual bias in U.S. conservatives. The easiest example to give would be Republican opposition to AGW as a stake in their party platform; why would climatologists pay any attention to their evidence-free denialism?
I lay it at the feet of conservative leadership being very well-paid to deny any lines of evidence that suggest a government entity has to step in and regulate their rich benefactors.
The social sciences, for example, suffer heavily from groupthink. Certain questions aren't asked, and certain answers aren't properly scrutinized.
Less vague, please.
-
Yeah, sorry UP, but [citation needed]
-
Yeah, sorry UP, but [citation needed]
Okay.
http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science (http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science)
-
What part of the state are you from? I'm from the Chicagoland area (we get all the political ads for Illinois, and almost none for Indiana), and as bad as it can be here, I can't imagine what it must be like everywhere else in the state. According to my freshman English teacher, the rest of the state doesn't even like people from northwest Indiana that much, and was called a 'region rat' when she went to a state university further south.
Indianapolis, which as a relatively big city is sane compared to most of the rest of the state, thank goodness. Make no doubt, I still hear from lots of idiots--I'll never forget the day I was sitting in a doctors office wanting to strangle an old lady loudly blathering Fox "News" points about "Obama is a Muslin blah blah blah" but I live in Andrew Carson's congressional district and even our state congressperson is a Democrat. Go to far any direction, though, and sure enough I'll run into the rural hehaws who think people like Todd Rokita, Dan Burton, and Mike Pence are/were worthy of public office.
I personally haven't heard any slagging of Northwest Indiana around here, but it may be a function of distance and, again, being a relatively urban and sane area.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
Paragon, I'm a big Lefty. I was with you on this until you started to get all "Universities Are All Moonbatty". IMHO, we need more Liberalism. I'm not going to lump all Conservatives into the "Wingnut/Teabagger" category but I'm not going to equate Universities with The Weather Underground.
I think a lot of our disagreements with each other, guys, is due to having different definitions & connotations to the same word/term/name. One person uses a word or phrase & means it to mean one thing but another person might see a slightly different meaning. This leads to a bunch of confusion.
-
It's too bad reality has a liberal basis.
Ironbite-then he'd have a point.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
-
Could you give any actuall examples of this?
Their attempts to hijack academia, for one.
Paragon, I'm a big Lefty. I was with you on this until you started to get all "Universities Are All Moonbatty". IMHO, we need more Liberalism. I'm not going to lump all Conservatives into the "Wingnut/Teabagger" category but I'm not going to equate Universities with The Weather Underground.
I think a lot of our disagreements with each other, guys, is due to having different definitions & connotations to the same word/term/name. One person uses a word or phrase & means it to mean one thing but another person might see a slightly different meaning. This leads to a bunch of confusion.
Oh, of course not. Not all universities have been hijacked by moonbats. However, there's definitely a strain of moonbattery in academia. Moreover, this is leading to attacks on freedom of speech on campuses all over America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/colleges-restrict-free-speech-fire-report_n_4633542.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/colleges-restrict-free-speech-fire-report_n_4633542.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-progressive-ideas-behind-the-lack-of-free-speech-on-campus/2015/02/20/93086efe-b0e7-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-progressive-ideas-behind-the-lack-of-free-speech-on-campus/2015/02/20/93086efe-b0e7-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html)
It's too bad reality has a liberal basis.
Ironbite-then he'd have a point.
That statement is pure nonsense. In the 19th Century, most of the world was controlled by white people, directly or indirectly. Does that mean reality had a pro-white bias?
-
Nope still liberal.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
-
It should also be noted, UP, that higher levels of education tend to make people more liberal.
You would probably say that it's because of the influence of liberal professors in academia. While that's undoubtedly a factor, I'd argue that a much larger one would be the fact that higher levels of education tend to expose people to other worldviews and ways of thinking. While that doesn't immunize them against groupthink and "my side is always correct," it does tend to foster a greater concern for the rights of others. American conservatism, on the other hand, has strong anti-intellectual tendencies even in their mainstream...if something is too complicated to explain in ten minutes or less, it's not worth knowing, "real men always follow their gut," the glorification of unquestioning faith over critical thought, etc.
Add in the fact that you need a certain degree of higher education in order to qualify to TEACH higher education, and you get a situation where most of the people applying for higher-education jobs are already predisposed toward a liberal worldview. That's not some vast conspiracy on the Left's part; that's just how it shakes out.
I'm still waiting for you to give any examples of how liberal idiots are anywhere near as dangerous as conservative idiots.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Are you going to tell us why, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
-
It should also be noted, UP, that higher levels of education tend to make people more liberal.
You would probably say that it's because of the influence of liberal professors in academia. While that's undoubtedly a factor, I'd argue that a much larger one would be the fact that higher levels of education tend to expose people to other worldviews and ways of thinking. While that doesn't immunize them against groupthink and "my side is always correct," it does tend to foster a greater concern for the rights of others. American conservatism, on the other hand, has strong anti-intellectual tendencies even in their mainstream...if something is too complicated to explain in ten minutes or less, it's not worth knowing, "real men always follow their gut," the glorification of unquestioning faith over critical thought, etc.
Add in the fact that you need a certain degree of higher education in order to qualify to TEACH higher education, and you get a situation where most of the people applying for higher-education jobs are already predisposed toward a liberal worldview. That's not some vast conspiracy on the Left's part; that's just how it shakes out.
I'm still waiting for you to give any examples of how liberal idiots are anywhere near as dangerous as conservative idiots.
The conservative anti-intellectual strain is more recent than most people imagine. Really, it only started to take root during the 1970s, and only sprouted in earnest even later. I honestly don't know if this developed as a result of liberal bias in academia or helped to cause it (my research is vague and contradictory), but we cannot ignore the fact that it's a recent development.
You claim that college makes people more liberal. Do you have sources? Were the studies peer-reviewed? When were they taken?
And as for "liberal idiots are less harmful": who has a higher body count, the Westboro Baptist Church or the Peoples Temple?
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Are you going to tell us why, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
You're an Aussie, right? Maybe something from your own country would hit closer to home. Australia's biggest feminist website recently published an article literally defending female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's done in Africa and therefore criticizing it is "racist".
But don't take my word for it:
https://archive.today/IffrZ (https://archive.today/IffrZ)
-
Re: leftism in academia.
This is actually something I noticed when I studied ethnology. It's a discipline that requires a capability to analyze and understand cultural phenomena without being judgemental about them, being able to see things in a greater context and the ability to tolerate a certain amount of relativism (which, of course, when taken too far can definitely be harmful). A person for whom this kind of thinking comes easily is also usually going to view the world in a more liberal way. This does produce a situation where overwhelming majority of the students and scholars are more liberal but it's questionable if it distorts the scientific process. If a person's way of thinking doesn't allow them to use a discipline's methodology properly it's better that they find a discipline that allows them to better use their personal resources.
The best way to correct possible intellectual distortions are IMO interdisciplinary projects and studies that take advantage of different perspectives to provide as nuanced a picture as possible and prevent individual disciplines from becoming echo chambers.
-
It should also be noted, UP, that higher levels of education tend to make people more liberal.
You would probably say that it's because of the influence of liberal professors in academia. While that's undoubtedly a factor, I'd argue that a much larger one would be the fact that higher levels of education tend to expose people to other worldviews and ways of thinking. While that doesn't immunize them against groupthink and "my side is always correct," it does tend to foster a greater concern for the rights of others. American conservatism, on the other hand, has strong anti-intellectual tendencies even in their mainstream...if something is too complicated to explain in ten minutes or less, it's not worth knowing, "real men always follow their gut," the glorification of unquestioning faith over critical thought, etc.
Add in the fact that you need a certain degree of higher education in order to qualify to TEACH higher education, and you get a situation where most of the people applying for higher-education jobs are already predisposed toward a liberal worldview. That's not some vast conspiracy on the Left's part; that's just how it shakes out.
I'm still waiting for you to give any examples of how liberal idiots are anywhere near as dangerous as conservative idiots.
The conservative anti-intellectual strain is more recent than most people imagine. Really, it only started to take root during the 1970s, and only sprouted in earnest even later. I honestly don't know if this developed as a result of liberal bias in academia or helped to cause it (my research is vague and contradictory), but we cannot ignore the fact that it's a recent development.
You claim that college makes people more liberal. Do you have sources? Were the studies peer-reviewed? When were they taken?
And as for "liberal idiots are less harmful": who has a higher body count, the Westboro Baptist Church or the Peoples Temple?
I'll see your false equivalence of a modern conservative social terrorism cult to a 1970s socialist suicide cult and raise you some relevant facts:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right)
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/whatever-happened-left-wing-domestic-terrorism (http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/whatever-happened-left-wing-domestic-terrorism)
-
Is UP really arguing that this is a recent phenomenon? Excuse me while I giggle with Plato and Socrates.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
-
Paragon, what happened? You went from sane to inflammatory. You've always been the one guy I could count on to be a friend on this board but now even I think you're being kind of reactionary.
Now, if there's a Feminist who's defending FGM, then I agree with you that she is crazy.
Yes, I agree with you that there are Left-Wingers who go too far. They're "Moonbats" aka "Extreme Militant Leftist Kookballs". I also agree that while "P.C." is a good thing, it can be taken too far. Yes, I too think that RadFems and SJW-types are annoying.
The problem is that you're confusing normal Leftists with the Moonbats. Frankly, you're alienating even me.....and I see you as a friend, here. I still do. However, you're getting weird.
There's Good & Bad Conservatives.
There's Good & Bad Liberals.
Perhaps we need to ditch this label nonsense and think in terms of "Progressive vs. Regressive" and "Authoritarian vs. Egalitarian". Both of these can be found in both Left & Right.
Granted, Left tends to favor "Progressive/Egalitarian" more often but there are exceptions, like Soviet-Style Communism (even if it was a perversion of Marx's ideas). Heck, "Communist" countries tend to be as oppressive as Right-Wing Fascist ones.
Political/Social alignment is very complex and multifaceted.
-
Paragon, what happened? You went from sane to inflammatory. You've always been the one guy I could count on to be a friend on this board but now even I think you're being kind of reactionary.
Now, if there's a Feminist who's defending FGM, then I agree with you that she is crazy.
Yes, I agree with you that there are Left-Wingers who go too far. They're "Moonbats" aka "Extreme Militant Leftist Kookballs". I also agree that while "P.C." is a good thing, it can be taken too far. Yes, I too think that RadFems and SJW-types are annoying.
The problem is that you're confusing normal Leftists with the Moonbats. Frankly, you're alienating even me.....and I see you as a friend, here. I still do. However, you're getting weird.
There's Good & Bad Conservatives.
There's Good & Bad Liberals.
Perhaps we need to ditch this label nonsense and think in terms of "Progressive vs. Regressive" and "Authoritarian vs. Egalitarian". Both of these can be found in both Left & Right.
Granted, Left tends to favor "Progressive/Egalitarian" more often but there are exceptions, like Soviet-Style Communism (even if it was a perversion of Marx's ideas). Heck, "Communist" countries tend to be as oppressive as Right-Wing Fascist ones.
Political/Social alignment is very complex and multifaceted.
I agree, most leftists are not moonbats. Just as most rightists aren't wingnuts. I'm a moderate, so maybe I can see the flaws in the American Left more clearly than most on this board. And in my opinion, the left's biggest flaw is the same as the right's: their inability to properly deal with extremists.
Now, with the Democrats, the inmates aren't running the asylum... yet. But there are worrying signs that they might be making their move.
My big fear is that the Democratic Party will suffer the same fate as the GOP: a focus on ideological purity turning it into a caricature of its former self. It's already happened with the Occupy Movement. I understand resentment at the fact that the Democrats have been pulled to the right, and I agree with a lot of it. But giving in to radicalism is not the solution. Or do you want to see Democratic politicians being labelled "DINOS" for the "crime" of not being liberal enough to satisfy the moonbats?
-
You're an Aussie, right? Maybe something from your own country would hit closer to home. Australia's biggest feminist website recently published an article literally defending female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's done in Africa and therefore criticizing it is "racist".
But don't take my word for it:
https://archive.today/IffrZ (https://archive.today/IffrZ)
There you go, that's something. Why didn't you post something like that in the first place?
-
You're an Aussie, right? Maybe something from your own country would hit closer to home. Australia's biggest feminist website recently published an article literally defending female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's done in Africa and therefore criticizing it is "racist".
But don't take my word for it:
https://archive.today/IffrZ (https://archive.today/IffrZ)
There you go, that's something. Why didn't you post something like that in the first place?
Did she cause any real world harm or did she just say stupid things.
-
You're an Aussie, right? Maybe something from your own country would hit closer to home. Australia's biggest feminist website recently published an article literally defending female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's done in Africa and therefore criticizing it is "racist".
But don't take my word for it:
https://archive.today/IffrZ (https://archive.today/IffrZ)
There you go, that's something. Why didn't you post something like that in the first place?
Did she cause any real world harm or did she just say stupid things.
One could ask the same question of Stormfront. They talk a big game, but the most proactive thing they ever did was hijack a Fox News poll.
But since you asked, here's a more clear-cut case of real world harm: in the early 2000s, Zambia was hit by a devastating famine, so America sent food aid. But the food was genetically modified, which unfortunately led Zambia's president to reject it on the "advice" of Greenpeace.
-
You're an Aussie, right? Maybe something from your own country would hit closer to home. Australia's biggest feminist website recently published an article literally defending female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's done in Africa and therefore criticizing it is "racist".
But don't take my word for it:
https://archive.today/IffrZ (https://archive.today/IffrZ)
There you go, that's something. Why didn't you post something like that in the first place?
Did she cause any real world harm or did she just say stupid things.
One could ask the same question of Stormfront. They talk a big game, but the most proactive thing they ever did was hijack a Fox News poll.
But since you asked, here's a more clear-cut case of real world harm: in the early 2000s, Zambia was hit by a devastating famine, so America sent food aid. But the food was genetically modified, which unfortunately led Zambia's president to reject it on the "advice" of Greenpeace.
Thanks you, that works.
Also, fuck you Greenpeace, you motherfuckers.
-
You're an Aussie, right? Maybe something from your own country would hit closer to home. Australia's biggest feminist website recently published an article literally defending female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's done in Africa and therefore criticizing it is "racist".
But don't take my word for it:
https://archive.today/IffrZ (https://archive.today/IffrZ)
There you go, that's something. Why didn't you post something like that in the first place?
Did she cause any real world harm or did she just say stupid things.
One could ask the same question of Stormfront. They talk a big game, but the most proactive thing they ever did was hijack a Fox News poll.
But since you asked, here's a more clear-cut case of real world harm: in the early 2000s, Zambia was hit by a devastating famine, so America sent food aid. But the food was genetically modified, which unfortunately led Zambia's president to reject it on the "advice" of Greenpeace.
Thanks you, that works.
Also, fuck you Greenpeace, you motherfuckers.
Now that's a good example. Greenpeace were boobs on that one!
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing. Same with sex negativity. And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic. Your point?
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing.
There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?
Same with sex negativity.
I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.
And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.
As is everyone on the right.
My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.
-
Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.
-
Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.
Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.
UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing.
There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?
Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe. And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?
Same with sex negativity.
I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.
If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell. You can't have it both ways.
And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.
As is everyone on the right.
Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers. No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.
My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.
Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.
Ask a Nova Scotian:
http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy (http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy)
Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.
I agree, we should beware the middle ground fallacy. But I believe equality is generally a moderate thing.
Furthermore, I don't think both left-wing and right-wing extremists are necessarily equally bad, at least in practice. There are many, many times and places where one is worse than the other. I'm just saying that it's negligent to guard one side but not the other.
Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.
UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.
You're not doing anything to combat my views. Maybe when you town down your irrational anti-rightism, I'll think you're being intellectually honest.
-
THERE IT IS! THERE IT IS AGAIN! HOLY FUCKING GOD THERE IT IS AGAIN!
-
*response to my quote*
Thank you for clarifying.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing.
There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?
Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe. And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?
Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.
Same with sex negativity.
I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.
If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.
And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.
As is everyone on the right.
Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers. No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.
Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so.
My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.
Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.
Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.
Ask a Nova Scotian:
http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy (http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy)
The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.
Ooops.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing.
There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?
Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe. And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?
Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". Yes. He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!
And he was caught on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw
Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe. If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.
Same with sex negativity.
I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.
If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.
Of course not. But if left-wing critics of prostitution can be considered legitimate, why isn't the same true when it comes to the right wing?
And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.
As is everyone on the right.
Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers. No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.
Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so..
Do you have sources? I could claim that 90% of French teenagers listen exclusively to EDM, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing without citations to back it up.
My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.
Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.
Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.
Shiny mirror.
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.
Ask a Nova Scotian:
http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy (http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy)
The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.
Ooops.
Nope. The liberals are a center-left party. You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.
-
Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.
Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.
UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.
Really? I think you will find that Politics is like religion. That is most people will belong to the group they were born into and will stay in that group for all their lives.
-
Another thing I dislike is how you seems to be implying that being more moderate is a good thing in itself and we should be wary of radicals from both sides. 50 years ago a black guy who doesn't sit still long enough for the officer to beat his skull in was a radical, 30 years ago thinking Trans people should be made to undergo conversion therapy was moderate.
Yes. This is a big problem with UP (and another commenter on this site). Most people come to their political opinions through reason; they try to work out what they want by applying reason. People obviously have priors, but honest people will allow them to be challenged - or, at the very least will use reason to figure out the best way to enact their objectives.
UP's approach is sub-rational. He adds the views of the right with his imagined version of the left and divides them by two. The world isn't flat; it's a half-sphere. Complete shit unfortunately, but a very easy view to hold.
Really? I think you will find that Politics is like religion. That is most people will belong to the group they were born into and will stay in that group for all their lives.
I'd say that's actually quite accurate for a lot of people. Of course, there are exceptions to any rule, for good:
(https://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/malcolm-x-1.jpg)
Or for ill:
(http://bastille-day.com/media/Robespierre.jpg)
-
Nope. The liberals are a center-left party. You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.
Canadian Liberal parties range from "campaign on a centre-left platform, implement centre-right policies in government" (federal Liberals) to "we're actually just the federal Conservatives" (BC Liberals).
It's been that way since Laurier.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing.
There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?
Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe. And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?
Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".
Yep, criticising.
Same with sex negativity.
I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.
If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.
Of course not. But if left-wing critics of prostitution can be considered legitimate, why isn't the same true when it comes to the right wing?
Sure, so long as they're reason-based.
And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.
As is everyone on the right.
Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers. No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.
Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so..
Do you have sources? I could claim that 90% of French teenagers listen exclusively to EDM, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing without citations to back it up.
You really think transphobia is JUST AS COMMON among the homophobic bigots of the right as the left, who've spent the last thirty years fighting for the rights of said?
My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.
Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.
Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.
Shiny mirror.
Three options here
1) Make a rational case
2) Admit being wrong
3) Shut the fuck up
Any response but 1), 2) or 3) will be taken to be 2).
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.
Ask a Nova Scotian:
http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy (http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy)
The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.
Ooops.
Nope. The liberals are a center-left party. You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.
Completely ridiculous and utterly dishonest false equivalence, as usual.
-
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". Yes. He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!
And he was caught on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw
Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe. If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.
I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?
-
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". Yes. He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!
And he was caught on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw
Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe. If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.
I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?
It's been well over 24 hours on this, and I'm a bit disappointed to see this question go unanswered. I honestly am confused as to why you'd find any of these statements objectionable, UP. They all seem quite reasonable to me.
-
Postmodernists are typically leftists.
This is sort of true. Most philosophy is either liberal or radical. This says more about conservatism than it does philosophers.
Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists.
Half/half, with virtually no left politician and a good deal of right politicians onside.
I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
Not even they.
Anti-Semitism can be found on the left, even though most people think of it as a far-right thing.
There's a reasonable amount of 'anti-semitism' - that is, disagreement with the policy of the Likud and Labour parties of Israel. I'm not sure how much anti-semitism there is on the left, though. Can you think of a single elected anti-semite, that is a person who hates Jews?
Oh, anti-Semitism on the left is a serious problem, especially in Europe. And if you want an example, how about Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales?
Oh absolutely. He's a very clear case of 'anti-semitism'; he's a major critic of child murder, indiscriminate artillery bombardment and even theft, making him a very dangerous 'anti-semite'. Not sure what he thinks about the Jews though.
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!".
Yep, criticising.
Implying that Jews are child murderers is not simple "criticism".
Same with sex negativity.
I think we can treat this as a legitimate opinion.
If it's legitimate coming from Andrea Dworkin, then it's legitimate coming from Jerry Falwell. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not saying that Andrea Dworkin was a sensible person. But I don't think you can accuse all critics of prostitution of being Andrea Dworkin.
Of course not. But if left-wing critics of prostitution can be considered legitimate, why isn't the same true when it comes to the right wing?
Sure, so long as they're reason-based.
Fair enough.
And a lot of radical feminists are transphobic.
As is everyone on the right.
Kind of like how everybody on the left hates soldiers. No wait, that's just not true, and what you said is equally untrue.
Okay, 90%. 80%. Something like that. As a pollster, you're lucky to find a Republican who thinks gay people are human, let alone transsexuals. This is fairly rare on the left, maybe one in ten or so..
Do you have sources? I could claim that 90% of French teenagers listen exclusively to EDM, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing without citations to back it up.
You really think transphobia is JUST AS COMMON among the homophobic bigots of the right as the left, who've spent the last thirty years fighting for the rights of said?
I'm sorry, but I can't seem to understand what you're saying.
My point is that you're treating the two sides of politics differently, which is the only way you can sustain the comforting fiction that "both sides do it", to quote TV hackdom. No actually. Conservative politics disregards science and reason. Liberal politics does not, except on the extreme margins.
Wrong on both counts. There are plenty of reasonable conservatives, and plenty of irrational liberals.
Both sides don't do it. Fact. Now, it's much more convenient to believe otherwise, but it's also lying.
Shiny mirror.
Three options here
1) Make a rational case
2) Admit being wrong
3) Shut the fuck up
Any response but 1), 2) or 3) will be taken to be 2).
Shiny mirror.
Postmodernists are typically leftists. Anti-vaxxer/anti-gmo/alternative medicine types are typically leftists. The crazy wing of the Social Justice movement is more or less entirely leftist. I think 9/11 truthers skew leftist as well, though I'm not sure.
The left has plenty of idiots to go around.
I would like to point out anti-vaxxers don't slant towards any one side http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html)
And yes, it's true their is liberal idiots, it's just that they don't cause even a fraction the damage right-wing extremists have,
That's really debatable.
Go ahead then. Which liberal group has caused as much harm to the environment as, say, the Republican Party. Make sure they're elected.
What exactly do you mean by "the environment"? I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Say, climate change. The Republican Party has really helped climate change along a lot; Bush's clean air act, refusal to countenance a carbon tax, etc. Please point to a left politician that has refused to accept the science on climate change and whose policy has thereby done environmental harm.
Ask a Nova Scotian:
http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy (http://nsndp.ca/enviro/liberal-policy)
The Liberals are, of course, the centre party. The NDP (who you're quoting) are a left party. Quite an interesting position to take from a person who labels himself a moderate.
Ooops.
Nope. The liberals are a center-left party. You can't claim No True Scotsman just because of a prefix.
Completely ridiculous and utterly dishonest false equivalence, as usual.
How, exactly?
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". Yes. He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!
And he was caught on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw
Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe. If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.
I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?
It's been well over 24 hours on this, and I'm a bit disappointed to see this question go unanswered. I honestly am confused as to why you'd find any of these statements objectionable, UP. They all seem quite reasonable to me.
With that last bit, he crossed the line into anti-Semitic demagoguery. Essentially, he's implying that the "Teh Evol Joos" are going to kill British children unless they're stopped.
-
Oh, he does more than just criticize. He was quoted as saying "if you tolerate this, your children will be next!". Yes. He came this close to repeating the fucking blood libel!
And he was caught on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYX8WxpmJw
Don't forget: Great Britain is one of the most tolerant countries in Europe. If a politician can get away with saying that kind of stuff in Britain, I'd think it says a lot about anti-Semitism on the continent.
I see absolutely no problems with any of the statements said in the video. Can you please tell me which of the statements you find objectionable, and why?
It's been well over 24 hours on this, and I'm a bit disappointed to see this question go unanswered. I honestly am confused as to why you'd find any of these statements objectionable, UP. They all seem quite reasonable to me.
This. Might as well make a thread straw poll on this strawman objection to Sharar Ali.
-
With that last bit, he crossed the line into anti-Semitic demagoguery. Essentially, he's implying that the "Teh Evol Joos" are going to kill British children unless they're stopped.
I don't honestly see it. He's not saying anything about "teh evol joos", though the fact that you see it that way says something about you, I think. He's speaking out against the terroristic actions of the state of Israel, who might I add, doesn't represent Judaism anymore than Saudi Arabia represents Islam. And it is true that tolerating injustice often leads to further injustice. Again, aside from rhetoricizing a bit, there's nothing objectionable in his words from my point of view.
-
Right so getting back to the OP...was she convicted?
-
Right so getting back to the OP...was she convicted?
Yes, she had been sentenced to 20 years in prison* with both sentences to be served concurrently.
The trial happened several months ago but the sentencing happened around the time Lizard started the thread.
* 41 total years, 20 to be served concurrently in prison and an additional 5 years of probation after the fuzzy math.
-
But there's no war on women.
Ironbite-unfuckingbelieveable.
-
Right so getting back to the OP...was she convicted?
Yes, she had been sentenced to 20 years in prison* with both sentences to be served concurrently.
The trial happened several months ago but the sentencing happened around the time Lizard started the thread.
* 41 total years, 20 to be served concurrently in prison and an additional 5 years of probation after the fuzzy math.
Then that would be consecutive, not concurrent. Minor typo, I presume.