The Left is insane

Nov 2005
8,964
3,442
California
#41
You have it all wrong friend

1. We should tax away hurricanes with the Green New Deal.
2. No one cares about the working man except for democrats
3. Trump is Hitler so we should give him all our guns.
4. Just because you take prayer out of the schools and violence in those schools explode afterwards does not mean there is a correlation. It's just a coincidence.
The problem is, the entire Left seems to be made of crack pots.
You keep complaining about stuff you claim "the left" (as a supposed monolithic entity) thinks, but then your examples are either habitually one person (or a small group of people) or some complaint you just stereo-typed (inappropriately) onto the left.
 
Feb 2019
1,803
425
here and there
#42
You keep complaining about stuff you claim "the left" (as a supposed monolithic entity) thinks, but then your examples are either habitually one person (or a small group of people) or some complaint you just stereo-typed (inappropriately) onto the left.
It kinda is.

For example, when a democrat appoints a stooge on the Supreme Court, you pretty much know how they will vote all the time. It is almost as if they don't even need to show up to rule on a case because it will be right down party lines. However, when a Republican puts in a judge, it's like a box of chocolates.

 
Nov 2005
8,964
3,442
California
#44
No. It really isn't.
And it's rather telling that you know your attempt was crap when you pull something like: "So let's drop the left/right rhetoric for a bit."
ONE PERSON doing something does not epitomize the entire group.

Do us all a favor and show some "intelligence" in recognizing that, even if you don't have the moral fortitude to admit the it.


For example, when a democrat appoints a stooge on the Supreme Court, you pretty much know how they will vote all the time. It is almost as if they don't even need to show up to rule on a case because it will be right down party lines. However, when a Republican puts in a judge, it's like a box of chocolates.
SCOTUS judges voting the party line occurs on both sides of the party line.
I realize you don't want to acknowledge simple truths like this, but it's what happens. We could go down a list of SCOTUS rulings and be completely unsurprised by how Scalia and Thomas have voted, but you don't want to be honest and just admit that.


Swedish professor is not on the left, he is more on thr nazi side, that makes him far< far right.
I think you just figured out the reason why Organic Intelligence said: "So let's drop the left/right rhetoric for a bit."
Ever since then, OI has been trying to derail their own thread and avoid talking about the first post.
 
Likes: Biff
Nov 2018
4,402
2,343
Inner Space
#45
SCOTUS judges voting the party line occurs on both sides of the party line.
I realize you don't want to acknowledge simple truths like this, but it's what happens. We could go down a list of SCOTUS rulings and be completely unsurprised by how Scalia and Thomas have voted, but you don't want to be honest and just admit that.
Those that study the court are struck, actually, at how often the justices vote unanimously or without much indication of underlying political philosophy and "liberal" and "conservative" justices tend to vote similarly more than 50% of the time.

check data at Statistics - SCOTUSblog
 
Likes: leekohler2
#46
In conflicts, whether military or political, you want to concentrate your forces, including your psychological forces, on defeating the enemy. This means minimizing all those feelings that might weaken your resolve in the struggle, such as sympathy or even empathy for anyone on his side.

Thus in a war, the other side is caricatured as the personification of evil, although this characterization is often tempered, paradoxically, with attempts to portray the enemy as a stupid buffoon.




If you look at the American propaganda posters and films from WWII, the Germans and Japanese are protrayed as hideous monsters, or inept bumbling clowns. Showing the reality, that our bombs were blowing German children to pieces, and burnng Japanese children alive, would have weakened our fighting spirit. The fact that most enemy soliders were frightened teenage conscrpts was never mentioned.

So also with political struggle. It's to our advantage to portray the other side in the worst possible light.

Leftists prefer to think of the Right as either evil corporation bosses funding lobbyists to make sure there is no minimum wage and that 13 year olds in Indonesia have the right to work 12 hours a day assembling iPhones, or fundamentalist preachers telling their congregations that Donald Trump has been sent by Jesus to save us from liberalism (while molesting the teenage daughters of their gullible followers.

Rightists prefer to think of the Left as either masked anti-Fa thugs throwing bricks at Republican grandmothers at a Memorial Day parade, or crazed academics indoctrining their classes about the existence of 96 different genders.

This is too bad because it keeps forums like this from being useful. No one learns very much. No one really tries to convince the other side.
 
Nov 2018
4,402
2,343
Inner Space
#47
In conflicts, whether military or political, you want to concentrate your forces, including your psychological forces, on defeating the enemy. This means minimizing all those feelings that might weaken your resolve in the struggle, such as sympathy or even empathy for anyone on his side.

Thus in a war, the other side is caricatured as the personification of evil, although this characterization is often tempered, paradoxically, with attempts to portray the enemy as a stupid buffoon.




If you look at the American propaganda posters and films from WWII, the Germans and Japanese are protrayed as hideous monsters, or inept bumbling clowns. Showing the reality, that our bombs were blowing German children to pieces, and burnng Japanese children alive, would have weakened our fighting spirit. The fact that most enemy soliders were frightened teenage conscrpts was never mentioned.

So also with political struggle. It's to our advantage to portray the other side in the worst possible light.

Leftists prefer to think of the Right as either evil corporation bosses funding lobbyists to make sure there is no minimum wage and that 13 year olds in Indonesia have the right to work 12 hours a day assembling iPhones, or fundamentalist preachers telling their congregations that Donald Trump has been sent by Jesus to save us from liberalism (while molesting the teenage daughters of their gullible followers.

Rightists prefer to think of the Left as either masked anti-Fa thugs throwing bricks at Republican grandmothers at a Memorial Day parade, or crazed academics indoctrining their classes about the existence of 96 different genders.

This is too bad because it keeps forums like this from being useful. No one learns very much. No one really tries to convince the other side.
Ok, that is a common complaint that falls under the category of "can't we all just get along". So, the next logical step is to look at the conflict honestly. Do you REALLY think that BOTH sides are equally to be blamed for the current polarity.. or is it possible that one side more than another has promoted this political conflict?
 
May 2018
6,647
4,495
Chicago
#48
No one really tries to convince the other side.
Of course people try to convince the other side. It's done daily here with use of facts. Unfortunately, one side refuses to recognize facts, and that's where things break down. Just look at all the crazy shit Trump has done or said. He just compromised a US spy in Russia, yet the right does not seem to care. That's a major problem. If one side refuses to recognize facts, what can anyone do? This people cannot be convinced of anything.
 
#49
I'm new to this Forum, or at least have not looked at it in a long time, so I don't know if this one is different from the others I've seen ... perhaps it is, and if so, that's wonderful.

I definitely am not of the "can't we all just get along" persuasion. The nature of social reality is that there are deep conflicts of interest among human beings, and this is what politics is about. (Although there are also areas of mutual interest where you shold look to see how you can co operate with your political opponents. An example of that is the recent decision by George Soros and the Koch Brothers [now Brother] to work together in the new Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft to try to change American foreign policy from its current interventionist mode to something more restrained).

Another example of this is the fact that there seems to be a lot of interest among some conservatives in the campaign of Major Tulsi Gabbad. On another forum in which I take part, there was a discussion of her candidacy, with a dozen or more conservatives taking part, and the great majority of them were pro-Gabbard.

I don't think this is a fluke. The world is changing rapidly, and one of those changes -- or, more precisely, the effect of some of those changes, is to be found among the Republican base, which used to be reflexively hawkish. This is no longer true, given the results of American interventions abroad over the last couple of decades -- even starting with 'Blackhawk Down' in Somalia. Furthermore, as I know from my own family in Texas (all Republicans), the reality is, and always has been, that many ordinary social conservatives are actually also economic 'liberals' (not in the von Mises sense, but in the New Deal sense).

Which makes for interesting times, and underlines the necessity for us to listen to each other and not just to assume that the other side are made up of hopeless idiots or wicked evildoers. I know this sounds namby-pamby but in a war, you never should overlook the chance to gain an ally, even temporarily, or to neutralize an enemy.
 

Similar Discussions