Democrats Making a Shift

[Carborendum]

Yeah, "Free Palestine" isn't anti-Semitic. (rrrrriiiiggghhht...)

[Phoenix_person]

On 12/28/2024 at 2:58 PM, Carborendum said:

Yeah, "Free Palestine" isn't anti-Semitic. (rrrrriiiiggghhht...)

Those coffee shop employees are bigots. There's some in every demographic, including yours. I look forward to the day, if it ever comes, when we can discuss such issues without cherry-picking the worst examples of our opposition. I've been guilty of it as well. I'm working on it. Antisemitism is not a leftist trait because of these idiots any more than it's a conservative trait because of folks like Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes. You're falling for rage bait, something I've been rightly accused of in the past.

If there truly is a "deep state", I guarantee they'd rather have us calling each other antisemites than talking about health care costs or the true causes of post-COVID "inflation". There's no left or right for those people. There's them and there's us. There's a lot more of us than there are of them, and they know it. That's why we keep being fed crap about pronouns and antisemitism. They're spoon-feeding us a culture war so we won't wage a class war. 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Those coffee shop employees are bigots. There's some in every demographic, including yours.

I absolutely agree. 

I've seen bigoted being shouted down by conservatives in the public eye in the news and in other public forums (and several times from those on this forum).  But I've never once heard any liberal condemn the use of "from the river to the sea" including you.  It's always, "That's wrong, but..."  That's IF they say it's wrong at all.

I've also heard those in power (university officials) who publicly refuse denounce "death to Jews" as antisemitic.

As for fighting the deep state, I'd 100% agree with you, except...  everything else you said after that.  Everything you mentioned makes government bigger.  How do you fight the deep state by making government bureaucracy bigger?  When has any Democrat in your lifetime ever made a proposal to shrink the size of government?  Did it gain any traction?

How about the de-escalation of governmental power against citizens for Constitutionally protected activity?

I've never heard a leftists say that peacefully protesting an abortion facility should be protected by law.  And we have dozens of individuals who have been imprisoned for just that.

How about freedom of speech?  There are women who were raped in prison by a man pretending to be a woman.  He claimed he was transgender for the sole purpose of having access to women.  And he succeeded. Now the women who are accusing him of rape are required to address him by she/her pronouns in the court trial against him.  If they slip up even once, the judge will throw the case out.

I really want to believe you're being sincere.  Please tell me that you believe that goes too far.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I absolutely agree. 

I've seen bigoted being shouted down by conservatives in the public eye in the news and in other public forums (and several times from those on this forum).  But I've never once heard any liberal condemn the use of "from the river to the sea" including you.  It's always, "That's wrong, but..."

"From the river to the sea" is words. Words rooted in hate, yes, but just words. I'm not upset about words. I'm upset about the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed or displaced by the IDF in the name of national defense. I believe in Israel's right to exist. I also believe that the war of 1948 was an act of Western-sanctioned ethnic cleansing, and I don't blame Palestinians for holding a grudge about their home being occupied land. I don't know what the solution for peace is over there. Anyone who says they do is lying. There's no way to reverse 75+ years of history and do 1948 over in a way that is compassionate to Jewish refugees without creating Palestinian ones (and I'm not sure if that could have been done in 1948 either, tbh). My heart truly goes out to the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas, and their families. It also goes out to the Palestinian mothers who had to collect the body parts of their children to bury them, those who were buried by their children, and those who were buried with them. It goes out to my Israeli friend in Berlin who is in constant fear that her parents, who are both children of Holocaust survivors, will be killed by a Hamas rocket. There's no shortage of need for compassion in that conflict, and it pains me to see people of all political stripes pick and choose who is worthy of their compassion.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

As for fighting the deep state, I'd 100% agree with you, except...  everything else you said after that.  Everything you mentioned makes government bigger.  How do you fight the deep state by making government bureaucracy bigger? 

You're wrong if you think the people holding the strings of the deep state are elected government officials and not people like the guy who was gunned down in New York a few weeks ago. I don't like government bureaucracy any more than you do, but at least our government has checks and balances and systems of accountability. Who are corporate shareholders accountable to? Because right now the only thing they seem to fear is bullets. Do you want to live in a world where murder is the only punishment for corporate greed and excess? Because I don't. Republicans aren't destroying the deep state. They're privatizing and deregulating it and giving it tax cuts. I'd rather have bureaucracy than an oligarchy.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

How about the de-escalation of governmental power against citizens for Constitutionally protected activity?

Sure. 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've never heard a leftists say that peacefully protesting an abortion facility should be protected by law. 

Peacefully, yes. So now you've heard one leftist say it, and I know I'm not alone.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And we have dozens of individuals who have been imprisoned for just that.

Show me the cases. Because you have to realize that a lot of us on the left view anti-abortion protestors the same way many conservatives view BLM protesters, and for good reason. There are over 20 criminal cases in that link (plus some civil ones) spanning the last decade, all of them involving violence, threats of violence, or illegal blockades. I support the first amendment rights of those who protest peacefully, but pro-life protesters have a reputation for not always being peaceful.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There are women who were raped in prison by a man pretending to be a woman.  He claimed he was transgender for the sole purpose of having access to women.  And he succeeded. Now the women who are accusing him of rape are required to address him by she/her pronouns in the court trial against him.  If they slip up even once, the judge will throw the case out.

It looks like you're cherry-picking again. Yes, I absolutely and unequivocally condemn this. I'm curious though, is it a common problem in our prison system? If so, then I agree that it needs to be nipped in the bud right away.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

If there truly is a "deep state", I guarantee they'd rather have us calling each other antisemites than talking about health care costs or the true causes of post-COVID "inflation". There's no left or right for those people. There's them and there's us.

At it's most basic, the definition of 'conspiracy' is two or more people planning things in secret that will influence others.   So if you and I communicate in Facebook messenger to play a prank on LDSGator, we would be co-conspirators engaging in a conspiracy.   So from that definition and perspective, there are conspiracies and conspirators everywhere.  The word doesn't deserve the weight we give it.   If you've watched the Hamilton musical, it portrays the birth of our elected officials learning to conspire when Hamilton meets with his political adversaries Madison and Jefferson behind closed doors to reach a deal and ensure each other's votes on things.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySzEXKUSZw.  And from that perspective, everything every official or policymaker or lobbyist does is a conspiracy unless there's some sort of record made of the conversation or proceedings.

 

That said, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of large/powerful people and groups out there, conspiring with each other in ways that will harm me and mine, and help them and theirs.  The goal is usually to help them and theirs, while the harm is optional and not always a thing.  

One eye opening one was the Russian use of twitter bots to forward and boost antivax narratives on western nations.   Sounds like a story a conspiracy nut would make up, right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45294192
https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/russian-trolls-bots-influence-vaccine-discussion-twitter

So yeah, nations try to manipulate the culture and affairs of other nations.  And nonstate actors get together to do the same.  And yeah, we all knew in Colorado that limp and unimpressive John Hickenlooper would be a name we heard for decades.  Because as his lackluster governorship ended, he got on someone's private jet and flown off to Montreaux Switzerland to meet with the Bilderbergers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Meeting#Conspiracy_theories

 

Subscribe to my newsletter for more of the truth they don't want you to hear!

 

[Traveler]

I would say something about bigotry and racism.  I would take all these terms and put forth the idea that there are two very distinct levels, types or kinds of bigotry and racism.  One is rooted in the fear of things (people and ideas) that are foreign, different and not well understood.  At this level we are all racists and bigots.  The other level is rooted in the thinking and insistence that justice cannot be served without revenge and punishment.  At this level we tend to lose any sense of reason and logic.

I do not think this is a matter of spectrum between the two but rather two very different things in and of themselves.  And yet we do not separate the two and realize the difference.  Yet we will forgive ourselves and others we love or care about and in the next breath condemn to Hell, lessor offences in those that are deemed different.

It is my opinion that we ought to refrain from name calling and demonizing and address problems directly and logically.  More and more I am learning that if someone cannot discuss a difficult topic or address someone that disagrees without hate and anger – then it is you (or me or whoever) that is the problem.  And regardless of who or what is the problem – there is no logic in feeding the fire and making it worse.  We cannot control anyone else’s hate and anger – only our own.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We cannot control anyone else’s hate and anger – only our own.

I totally agree, but we can and should call out real hate.

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

I totally agree, but we can and should call out real hate.

More for a warning to others. If John hates Asian people he’ll look for a reason to hate black people, white people, green people, etc

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

"From the river to the sea" is words. Words rooted in hate, yes, but just words. I'm not upset about words.

Are you aware of the legal doctrine known as "fighting words"?  They are words that are so far beyond the pale that their very utterance is considered a physical threat or is sufficient to legally justify a physical response.

From the river to the sea is a direct call to eradicate Jews from the Middle East.  It is a call for genocide.

But you simply refuse to acknowledge that very obvious fact.  And this isn't the first time you've taken this position.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm upset about the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed or displaced by the IDF in the name of national defense.

Tell that to Hamas who is using them as human shields.

Do you have the same position about the Allied powers bombing Germany and Japan?

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I believe in Israel's right to exist. I also believe that the war of 1948 was an act of Western-sanctioned ethnic cleansing, and I don't blame Palestinians for holding a grudge about their home being occupied land.

These statements are contradictory due to one simple fact.  You can't call it "occupied land" without also believing that the Palestinians have a right to kill to take it back.  And how do they want to do it?  By committing genocide.

"Holding a grudge" is something that happens in civilized societies.  Does that justify genocide?  That's exactly what Hamas wants.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't know what the solution for peace is over there.

Yes and no.  I myself don't have the knowledge of politics to understand all that needs to be done to execute an operable plan.  But I do know that Korea and Japan were able to end it because they refused to make the political issues a perpetual issue.  They didn't hand down the hatred through all generations.  The last remnants of individuals from WWII are dying out.  And their children are not going to hold a grudge into the next generation.

Hyundai/Kia works with Toyota/Honda/Nissan quite a bit.  And because of that willingness to move forward, Korean automotive companies are among the most widely sold in the world.

• Jews do not hold a grudge against the modern day Germans.
• They do not hold a grudge against all of Europe and much of the US who held prejudices against them from even the current generation.  They just stand up and dust themselves off as best as they can, and move on.
• They are ready to forget about this latest incursion that killed thousands as soon as they let all the hostages go.  Palestinians aren't.  They will never stop until they eradicate all Jews from Israel except those who are to be kept as slaves.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

There's no way to reverse 75+ years of history and do 1948 over in a way that is compassionate to Jewish refugees without creating Palestinian ones (and I'm not sure if that could have been done in 1948 either, tbh).

I hear you.  There is truth to what you say here.  But I only agree with a small portion of it because of one fact that I have yet to hear explained by those on the side of Hamas.

Ethnic Palestinians live in peace as Israeli citizens with full protection of the law.  There is not a single Israeli living in Palestinian territories who are not enslaved or imprisoned.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

My heart truly goes out to the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas, and their families. It also goes out to the Palestinian mothers who had to collect the body parts of their children to bury them, those who were buried by their children, and those who were buried with them. It goes out to my Israeli friend in Berlin who is in constant fear that her parents, who are both children of Holocaust survivors, will be killed by a Hamas rocket. There's no shortage of need for compassion in that conflict, and it pains me to see people of all political stripes pick and choose who is worthy of their compassion.

I 100% agree with and empathize with this. 

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You're wrong if you think the people holding the strings of the deep state are elected government officials

I have no idea how you believed I was guilty of that accusation.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

and not people like the guy who was gunned down in New York a few weeks ago.

You'd need to provide some evidence that he was guilty of... whatever you're accusing him of.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't like government bureaucracy any more than you do

Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me? 

I'll bet you don't like it, sure enough.  But more than I do?  Not likely.  

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

, but at least our government has checks and balances and systems of accountability.

Apparently a lot less than we'd like.  There are all kinds of protections and immunities that they have that make them almost untouchable.

They feel so free to do whatever they wish that they put instruction in writing for FEMA to skip over houses with Trump signs on them.  That was a matter of public record.  And they felt perfectly free to put that instruction in writing.  The whistle-blower supposedly has whistle-blower protections.  Do you honestly believe she will ever be able to feel comfortable at work for simply telling the truth about an injustice?

One manager has been fired (supposedly).  But it was a widespread practice and no one else is being fired for it.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Who are corporate shareholders accountable to? Because right now the only thing they seem to fear is bullets. Do you want to live in a world where murder is the only punishment for corporate greed and excess? Because I don't.

Government is supposed to hold them accountable.  But what tends to happen is that the Deep Stated wants to keep them in position so they can siphon off money from them.

Make no mistake about who has the power.  You think that the corporations have the power.  No.  The Deep State exercised power over Mark Zuckerberg to censor conservative voices.  They exercised power over banks to get records (without warrants) on US citizens who were political threats.  Dozens of high profile individuals got debanked because of it.  The Deep State are not puppets.  They are the puppet masters.  And they use corporations as their puppets.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Republicans aren't destroying the deep state. They're privatizing and deregulating it and giving it tax cuts. I'd rather have bureaucracy than an oligarchy.

It is only the liberal mindset that insists that if government doesn't take care of something, then there is no solution.

If you take government out of it, then the "oligarchy" that you refer to already has a regulating mechanism.  It's called the free market.

Consider the past few years in the whole "cancelling war" the nation has engaged in.  A lot was accomplished by simple social action that was simply exercising our personal choices without force.  -- except, we're now finding out just how much government force was used against private organizations to implement a woke agenda.

If we can take Disney down, even the biggest corporations are not immune to the will of the people.  

As far as medical insurance companies, I would submit that the reason why they have ballooned in price and fallen in service is because of governmental interference.  Take that out and they will be directly responsive to the people.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Sure. 

I'm glad we agree.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Peacefully, yes. So now you've heard one leftist say it, and I know I'm not alone.

OK, so you said it, which I would have appreciated it.  But then you go right into essentially denying that the constitutional infractions have ever happened.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Show me the cases. Because you have to realize that a lot of us on the left view anti-abortion protestors the same way many conservatives view BLM protesters, and for good reason. There are over 20 criminal cases in that link (plus some civil ones) spanning the last decade, all of them involving violence, threats of violence, or illegal blockades. I support the first amendment rights of those who protest peacefully, but pro-life protesters have a reputation for not always being peaceful.

This is what I mean.  

"Illegal blockades"?  Which ones? 

I've seen a few who show they are guilty of trespassing.  And they should certainly be punished for that.  But that is commonly just a fine and an order to never return or they will be sent to prison.  Instead, they get put in jail.  This is highly unusual for a simple "refusal to leave a commercial building.

What is completely unconscionable by police is that I've seen in videos of three or four people standing on a street corner with plenty of space for people to walk around or through them without fear.  But police come to arrest them for an "illegal blockade."

The reason is that the CARE act was specifically written to prevent any protests (peaceful or otherwise) around abortion clinics.  All of a sudden, abortion facilities have more rights than any other commercial building.  Essentially, the public sidewalk in front of the building is now a "protected space" where some people have more rights than others.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

It looks like you're cherry-picking again.

Not at all.  This is exactly what I'm complaining about.  The complete ignorance (by that, I mean that people want to ignore it) of these activities and moving along with the agenda that promotes and supports it.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Yes, I absolutely and unequivocally condemn this.

I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate this condemnation.  At least you recognize that this is crazy.

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm curious though, is it a common problem in our prison system? If so, then I agree that it needs to be nipped in the bud right away.

I've now heard of three instances in CA prisons specifically that were this bad.  I've read articles of many others where it was SA, but not rape.  Yet, in those cases, the prison officials simply told them that where was nothing they could do about it because the law says they are females.

Regardless of the frequency, I'd like to point out the terminology the woke mob tends to use: "Systemic."

When governmental power specifically requires behaviors that promote certain behaviors, it is systemic.  Even if it only happens once, the fact that the governmental system is in place to do so, it is systemic.

A judge is using state law to require women to refer to their rapists as she/her because "they deserve dignity."

You want to nip it in the bud?  Come up with a clear, logical, biological, legal definition of man and woman that is verifiable by more than a simple personal declaration.  It doesn't have to be used in everyday speech.  But it needs to be used in areas of the law.

[Phoenix_person]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Are you aware of the legal doctrine known as "fighting words"?  They are words that are so far beyond the pale that their very utterance is considered a physical threat or is sufficient to legally justify a physical response.

From the river to the sea is a direct call to eradicate Jews from the Middle East.  It is a call for genocide.

But you simply refuse to acknowledge that very obvious fact.  And this isn't the first time you've taken this position.

Fair enough. I unequivically denounce calls for genocide, including those used by Palestinians and their supporters. FTRTTS is not a phrase that I have ever used or ever would, and I acknowledge that while many leftists have used it as a rallying cry for peace in Gaza and not genocide, it's important to recognize the true meaning and origins of words and slogans. It's a concept our side tried to remind yours of when "America First" was making a comeback in our national vocabulary.

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you have the same position about the Allied powers bombing Germany and Japan?

That answer is complicated by the fact that yes, bombing both countries was justified, but we lacked the technology for precision strikes that we have today. THAT'S been one of the biggest critiques of the IDF's methods against Hamas. They have the best military technology in the world (because we gave it to them), but they're still leveling entire neighborhoods to get a small handful of Hamas extremists. It's been over a year, with thousands dead, and Hamas arguably isn't any more defeated than it was on 10/6/23. So where's the justification to continue leveling Palestinian communities?

And for the record, while I agree that military retaliation against Japan was necessary, I believe dropping nukes on civilians amounted to a war crime. I understand that there was always going to be collateral damage waging a war like that with the limitations of 1940s technology. I don't buy the notion that there was no viable alternative to nuclear weapons.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

These statements are contradictory due to one simple fact.  You can't call it "occupied land" without also believing that the Palestinians have a right to kill to take it back.  And how do they want to do it?  By committing genocide.

"Holding a grudge" is something that happens in civilized societies.  Does that justify genocide?  That's exactly what Hamas wants.

Yes and no.  I myself don't have the knowledge of politics to understand all that needs to be done to execute an operable plan.  But I do know that Korea and Japan were able to end it because they refused to make the political issues a perpetual issue.  They didn't hand down the hatred through all generations.  The last remnants of individuals from WWII are dying out.  And their children are not going to hold a grudge into the next generation.

The last remnants of WWII refugees aren't living in refugee camps 80 years later. Why? Because they created an entire new group of refugees in the Middle East, with a Western sanction. Why did Jewish refugees get Western help with resettling and Palestinian refugees did not? Japan and Korea settled their differences, but at the end of the day they still had sovereign nations to go home to.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ethnic Palestinians live in peace as Israeli citizens with full protection of the law.  

Israel was an apartheid state for years. I don't necessarily buy the notion that it still is, but citizenship does not entitle one to fair and equal treatment under the law. Just ask any black American 70+ years of age or older.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You'd need to provide some evidence that he was guilty of... whatever you're accusing him of.

I'm not accusing him, specifically, of anything. He represents a class of people who are very good at making sure profits continue to be put over people in every aspect of American life. The reason I vote Democrat is because while I see plenty of complicity in their party in perpetuating American corporatism, I also see people in power ready to take the party in a more people-centered direction. I don't see that in the GOP. 

And besides, we all know that corporate CEOs aren't the puppet masters. They're accountable to investors, and I generally don't trust anyone whose singular goal is to make as much money as possible. I don't think that's an ethical way to live. Our world is run by inherently unethical people. 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There are all kinds of protections and immunities that they have that make them almost untouchable.

If some people on my side had their way, there wouldn't be. Just sayin'. 🤷‍♂️ Trump's not going to fix that, and Wall Street knows it.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Government is supposed to hold them accountable.  But what tends to happen is that the Deep Stated wants to keep them in position so they can siphon off money from them.

Yep. We saw Ds and Rs alike cash out in the days leading up to COVID lockdowns. Some of us haven't given up on trying to thwart that kind of corruption via ethics proceedings. As you may recall, Dems even rooted out one of their own.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-bribery#:~:text=Southern District of New York,United States Department of Justice

To be clear, this is what we mean by holding government accountable. It's literally just using existing structures of accountability as designed. It's because of those systems of accountability that we know that Trump's first AG pick has a drug problem AND a pedo problem. They tried so hard to bury that report....

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is only the liberal mindset that insists that if government doesn't take care of something, then there is no solution.

If you take government out of it, then the "oligarchy" that you refer to already has a regulating mechanism.  It's called the free market.

How'd that work out in 2008? How's it working out now with our profit-centered health care system and a housing market being manipulated by private equity? I trust free market capitalism about as much as you trust government bureaucracy. At least we can sometimes fire the bureaucrats if they prove to be more trouble than they're worth.

[Ironhold]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I absolutely agree. 

I've seen bigoted being shouted down by conservatives in the public eye in the news and in other public forums (and several times from those on this forum).  But I've never once heard any liberal condemn the use of "from the river to the sea" including you.  It's always, "That's wrong, but..."  That's IF they say it's wrong at all.

I've also heard those in power (university officials) who publicly refuse denounce "death to Jews" as antisemitic.

As for fighting the deep state, I'd 100% agree with you, except...  everything else you said after that.  Everything you mentioned makes government bigger.  How do you fight the deep state by making government bureaucracy bigger?  When has any Democrat in your lifetime ever made a proposal to shrink the size of government?  Did it gain any traction?

How about the de-escalation of governmental power against citizens for Constitutionally protected activity?

I've never heard a leftists say that peacefully protesting an abortion facility should be protected by law.  And we have dozens of individuals who have been imprisoned for just that.

How about freedom of speech?  There are women who were raped in prison by a man pretending to be a woman.  He claimed he was transgender for the sole purpose of having access to women.  And he succeeded. Now the women who are accusing him of rape are required to address him by she/her pronouns in the court trial against him.  If they slip up even once, the judge will throw the case out.

I really want to believe you're being sincere.  Please tell me that you believe that goes too far.

As I've tried to explain to other individuals, when it comes to the extreme right and extreme left there's an alarming level of overlap in the stances they hold; the only real difference is the *motivation behind* those stances. 

We need to be wary of what's going on around us.

[LDSGator]

51 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

As I've tried to explain to other individuals, when it comes to the extreme right and extreme left there's an alarming level of overlap in the stances they hold; the only real difference is the *motivation behind* those stances. 

AMEN. I’ve been saying that for years. Check my post history. You know me, I hammer a point and can’t let it go. Like I do with my Scrabble skills. Right @mirkwood?

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Ironhold said:

when it comes to the extreme right and extreme left there's an alarming level of overlap in the stances they hold

Can someone give me a definition on what “the extreme right wing“ actually is? I keep hearing it’s authoritarian nationalism, Christian nationalism, fascism, against individual liberty, as well as the usual insults of bigoted/mysogynistic/hate filled, etc.

if that’s the case, I honestly don’t see how it has anything to do with republicanism, or right wing principled constitutional conservatism. It certainly can’t be an extension of those things.
 

As I sit here trying to be a good right wing constitutional conservative, and then I ramp my trying up to 10, and I try so hard to become such an extreme radicalized constitutional conservative that little veins on my forehead are popping out, I am moving away from all of that crap, not towards it.  The more radical a right wing or I become, the less government I want, the less authority of one human over another.

The left is different. The left starts out with vague notions of helping the poor, and a little bit of friendliness towards socialism. Maybe not much of that, but you know, more of what Denmark is doing? And then the more left you become, the more you become interested in things like radical revolutionary change, eliminating and rebuilding institutions.  Identity politics, power politics, organizing until you have sufficient strength to force change.  The more left you go, the more you become authoritarian and fascist. That’s not true of the right.

My anarchist arguing buddy who sees the entire world to the right of him disagrees. But I noticed that Dude has a career and a mortgage and pays taxes, and was actually declaring failure two weeks into Chaz/chop.
 

Unless someone has a good argument to the country, I will stick with what makes sense to me. The “extreme right wing“, is largely a fiction of the left, a title they force upon people who are violently and dangerously opposed to them. The extreme far right doesn’t really have anything to do with the right.

Nazis are not right wing. In the 20s and 30s they were born from democratic national socialism.  Today’s Nazis don’t have much with them. They are some of @Phoenix_person’s extreme examples, but they are not extreme examples of the right.

Right?

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

As I sit here trying to be a good right wing constitutional conservative, and then I ramp my trying up to 10, and I try so hard to become such an extreme radicalized constitutional conservative that little veins on my forehead are popping out, I am moving away from all of that crap, not towards it.  The more radical a right wing or I become, the less government I want, the less authority of one human over another.

...

The “extreme right wing“, is largely a fiction of the left, a title they force upon people who are violently and dangerously opposed to them. The extreme far right doesn’t really have anything to do with the right.

Nazis are not right wing. In the 20s and 30s they were born from democratic national socialism.  Today’s Nazis don’t have much with them. They are some of @Phoenix_person’s extreme examples, but they are not extreme examples of the right.

Right?

Stop ruining their hatred of you with your reason!

[Phoenix_person]

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Can someone give me a definition on what “the extreme right wing“ actually is? I keep hearing it’s authoritarian nationalism, Christian nationalism, fascism, against individual liberty, as well as the usual insults of bigoted/mysogynistic/hate filled, etc.

if that’s the case, I honestly don’t see how it has anything to do with republicanism, or right wing principled constitutional conservatism. It certainly can’t be an extension of those things.
 

As I sit here trying to be a good right wing constitutional conservative, and then I ramp my trying up to 10, and I try so hard to become such an extreme radicalized constitutional conservative that little veins on my forehead are popping out, I am moving away from all of that crap, not towards it.  The more radical a right wing or I become, the less government I want, the less authority of one human over another.

The left is different. The left starts out with vague notions of helping the poor, and a little bit of friendliness towards socialism. Maybe not much of that, but you know, more of what Denmark is doing? And then the more left you become, the more you become interested in things like radical revolutionary change, eliminating and rebuilding institutions.  Identity politics, power politics, organizing until you have sufficient strength to force change.  The more left you go, the more you become authoritarian and fascist. That’s not true of the right.

You're a conservative libertarian, by the sound of it. Most level-headed conservatives embrace libertarianism to some degree. You have that in common with most leftists, in fact. Our differences are more about economics than anything else. You think our corporate capitalist economy is good and necessary. I don't. You believe that people have a right to accumulate wealth in perpetuity and without limit, and often at the expense of those without wealth. But you seem reluctant to acknowledge that last part.

The conservative leap to authoritarianism isn't as far-fetched as you believe, especially when you throw in some healthy doses of Christian Nationalism, which has been on the rise for some time. It's one thing to believe that Christians are morally superior and that the US is God's chosen nation. It's another thing to try to govern said nation under a very strict Christian Nationalist lens to impose Christian values (as interpreted by politicians) on all Americans. Christian Nationalism often rubs shoulders with "Trad Life" folks, and you don't have to dig too deep into that subculture before you start seeing very clear white nationalist and white supremacist ideas. They like to use words like "Western" and "Traditional European" to thinly veil the racism. And they lean heavily Republican. They're recruiting Republicans the same way Nazis recruited skinheads in the 70s. You latch onto something people revere and convince them someone is threatening it. For skinheads, it was jobs. It's not hard to convince an uneducated factory worker that brown/black people are coming for his job. It's also not hard to convince Christian Nationalists that the entire world is persecuting them, but especially Jewish people and minorities. You may not be able to make the leap in your own conservative mind, just as I'll never fully understand the mentality that turns skinheads into Nazis or leftists into tankies. But I know it happens. I've seen it happen on my side as well as yours. And right now, your side has a lot more proximity to power than mine. 

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

But I noticed that Dude has a career and a mortgage and pays taxes, and was actually declaring failure two weeks into Chaz/chop.

Ah yes, the feeble and trite "But you participate in society. Curious!" take. I've seen that one plenty of times. Your friend sounds very pragmatic, and sometimes it's easier to fight the good fight from within.

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nazis are not right wing. In the 20s and 30s they were born from democratic national socialism.

Hitler's regime used socialist economics to build back Germany's military might in a very short period of time. ALL of Germany's resources were dedicated to one singular goal: the creation of an Aryan ethnoempire through military superiority and ethnic cleansing. It wasn't hard to convince post-WWI Germans that the world was against them, which is why they accepted socialist rule. Had Hitler's singular goal been free world-class health care for all, Jews included, we would have applauded him. But that would have been a tougher sell to the public. Germans wanted vengeance, not hospitals. They wanted to be a strong world power again.

And let's not act like Uncle Sam's war effort wasn't HEAVILY funded by taxpayers paying more than their share. We had Donald Duck in war propaganda cartoons telling people to buy war bonds. People were planting "victory gardens" to counteract the lean times created by wartime rationing on the coattails of the Great Depression. Big government got us out of said depression and built a military strong enough to win a war in two different hemispheres. And we only got away with it because Japan infected the American public with, wait for it, a thirst for vengeance.

That was 80 years ago. In post-9/11 America, it was typically conservative Republicans getting the biggest itch to go to war, and liberal Democrats/leftists voicing the loudest opposition to the Iraq War in particular. I don't think Bush could have sold his party on invading Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened. 9/11 was sufficiently catastrophic to trigger militant sentiments on a bipartisan basis, but I'm old enough to remember that there were voices of dissent even against invading Afghanistan, almost exclusively from the left. Not because they loved the Taliban, but because they hated violence. How many conservative Republicans are hardcore pro-demilitarization pacifists? I imagine close to zero. The left isn't immune from waves of nationalistic fervor, but the militarization of it in recent American politics has been driven primarily by your party. Our hardcore militants are tankies, and an overwhelming majority of us don't like tankies. Stalin and Castro were tankies.

 

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 Today’s Nazis don’t have much with them. They are some of @Phoenix_person’s extreme examples, but they are not extreme examples of the right.

Right?

I think a lot of good, decent Republicans are blind, perhaps willfully so, to the rot creeping in from the fringe corners of their party. Nazi Germany didn't happen overnight. Germans didn't wake up one day and decide they were okay with genocide (to be fair, I don't think there's reason to believe that most Germans were aware of the lengths their government went to in their antisemitic crusade, though they were likely aware of their Führer's antisemitic sentiments). It started with dehumanizing classes of people, then stripping them of rights, then making them wear emblems on their clothing. I'm all for immigration policy that is effective and compassionate wherever possible. Talk of mass deportations doesn't exactly reinforce the "compassionate" part, and an operatiin like that leaves plenty of room for abuse of power and wrongful imprisonment of legal US residents. That's not what I want my country to be. The state I live in has a lot of old German families and a lot of newer African ones. There's friction between communities sometimes due to cultural differences, but all of my interactions with our immigrant community have been overwhelmingly positive. I don't know what's going on in Germany to warrant Elon's support of this guy's party, but I'd hate to think that a German far-right party with a Nazi problem can hold appeal for any freedom-loving American.

Edited January 1 by Phoenix_person

[Phoenix_person]

One final note on the left/right orientation of Nazis as I sit here listening to a German skinhead band call them "right wing scum":

The meanings of what mainstream political discourse refers to as "liberal" and "conservative" tend to fluctuate with the times. Classical liberalism is practically extinct, or at best has morphed into true libertarianism. A lot of Reagan conservatives are labeled as RINOs by the Republican base that gave Trump a platform. Extreme leftism and extreme conservatism both have direct paths to authoritarianism. On the left, the authoritarianism is mostly economic. On the right, it's more social. As I explained, there is a lot of white supremacy running amok in Christian Nationalist circles. And white supremacists have a habit of making their racism everybody's problem as soon as they get any kind of access to power. They also tend to get a bit theocratic in government.

Ultimately, when it comes to categorizing Nazis politically, I'm going to call them what anti-Nazi Germans call them: right wing scum. I'm not going to pretend that Germany's media apparatus is any less agenda-driven than our own, but it's a verfifiable fact that the AfD has a Nazi problem, and there's nothing socialist about that party. In fact, their party platform reads very similar to the GOP's, and the Freedom Caucus in particular. It's almost as if socialism was ultimately a relatively minor trait of the Nazi regime despite having influenced half the name. If it walks like a Nazi and talks like a Nazi, but isn't socialist, is it still a Nazi? We used to call them "neo-Nazis" to differentiate, but then we realized that today's Nazis are exclusively neo-Nazis. So we dropped the "neo" part.

Edited January 1 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

First of all, Happy New Year @Phoenix_person!

7 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The conservative leap to authoritarianism isn't as far-fetched as you believe, especially when you throw in some healthy doses of Christian Nationalism, which has been on the rise for some time.

You're talking to someone who was there to witness the fall of Utah's laws protecting Sundays against corporate interests.  I remember local grocer Dan's Foods sending out a tearful letter to all the residences in a 5 mile radius, explaining how sorry they were, but they'd have to start being open on Sunday in order to remain profitable.  They promised to not make anyone's kid work on Sunday if they had a religious objection.   

I was there in the '80's and '90's, as the battle between LDS and non-LDS legislation created some of the most schizophrenic liquor laws in the nation, earning international chuckles.  For a few years, certain classes of restaurants could, by law,  reserve a percentage of their tables for customers who wanted to drink.  The restaurants could charge a "set-up fee": A buck for a glass filled with ice.  The patrons would have to bring their own alcohol.  I saw several successful waves of reforms getting the church out of the liquor regulation business, and they got exponentially successful after the 2002 Winter Olympics when the entire planet giggled at how hard it was to get a drink in Utah.  One of the more recent: "Zion curtain" laws, where bartenders had to be separated by partitions from the consumers of said drinks, fell in 2017.  

I see Utah's seminary program, where LDS kids get release time during the school day to walk across the street for religious education, is still a thing.  Still relying on a 70 yr old SCOTUS case.  Seems like populations are shrinking - only 100K Utah high schoolers do seminary during the school day?  It used to be all of us.

I scoured your paragraph for the evidence supporting your claim that Christian nationalism was on the rise.  I saw only your assertions that you can find people on social media who might feel favorably about legislating Christian morality, and you can find threads of racism in their speech, and you figure a bunch of 'em vote for Republicans.  As a child, I just assumed it would be best if only Mormons made laws, because we were the only good guys.  I grew out of that in my teen years, and I've been watching the notion lose steam in the nation ever since.  You find chicks on TikTok who want to be a tradwife but their boyfriend is a racist, and therefore Christian Nationalism is on the rise because the Republicans swept in the last election?  Imma need more to be persuaded. 

 

8 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You may not be able to make the leap in your own conservative mind, just as I'll never fully understand the mentality that turns skinheads into Nazis or leftists into tankies. But I know it happens. I've seen it happen on my side as well as yours. And right now, your side has a lot more proximity to power than mine. 

I really appreciated (and identified with) your post on focusing on the extremes.  I also understand how fringe or extreme things can get normalized into larger populations.  But still, conservatism is the notion that good things need to be preserved, and liberalism/progressivism is that stuff needs to be fixed with new solutions.  Surely you can see that conservatives are more resistant to such things?   I look at the last 5 years of vaccine mandates backed by force, laws enacted that enable males to invade female spaces, laws enabling school counselors to help a kid transition to another gender while keeping it secret from the parents.  I look for right-wing analogies to those things, and don't find any.  Something might be on the rise, but it isn't Christian Nationalism.  Racist extremes on X don't count.  Not in a nation where Trump is talking about eliminating the Department of Education for pete's sake. 

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

First of all, Happy New Year @Phoenix_person!

Happy New Year!

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I scoured your paragraph for the evidence supporting your claim that Christian nationalism was on the rise.  I saw only your assertions that you can find people on social media who might feel favorably about legislating Christian morality, and you can find threads of racism in their speech, and you figure a bunch of 'em vote for Republicans.  As a child, I just assumed it would be best if only Mormons made laws, because we were the only good guys.  I grew out of that in my teen years, and I've been watching the notion lose steam in the nation ever since.  You find chicks on TikTok who want to be a tradwife but their boyfriend is a racist, and therefore Christian Nationalism is on the rise because the Republicans swept in the last election?  Imma need more to be persuaded. 

Then look for it yourself. Seriously. There's a reason why I haven't been back to Gab since the fire. There's a reason why I left X. The former gave me some eye-opening insights into the way the alt-right thinks and operates, and the fact that there are elected members of Congress and Trump insiders like Roger Stone alongside fringe hatemongers like Laura Loomer and Nick Fuentes is disappointing, but not surprising. X used to be fun when it was Twitter, now it's a cesspool of Muskbros and Christian nationalists.

Speaking of the Muskrat, I couldn't help noticing when I was digging into his AfD enthusiasm that he's adopted the "frog culture" made popular by America First nationalists like Nick Fuentes. I saw that stuff everywhere on Gab. Like, EVERYWHERE. Keke this, Pepe that. Frog says Jews bad, etc... To this day, I don't fully understand that particular piece of co-opted conservative pop culture, but I know enough about the people who tend to embrace the "frog cult" to know that they aren't typically people you want anywhere near government. 

That's about the extent to which I'm willing to go to help you find the pond scum in the GOP pool. If you really want to find it, happy hunting. The days of me digging through the trash for you are done, respectfully. 

It's easy to dismiss people like that as an angry minority of internet trolls, but look at the online activity of people like Trump and Musk, especially the latter (last I checked, Trump was still limiting his direct posting to Truth Social and letting his staff handle other social media). How sure are you that some of the country's most powerful people haven't been poisoned by the same online garbage that I had to shut myself off from to maintain my sanity?

I'll freely admit that I am WAY too chronically online and sometimes have to step back and evaluate what's worth being wary against and what's just fringe noise. But it's very hard for me to dismiss THIS as fringe noise and not a sign that we might have the world's biggest conservative troll advising the next president of the United States.

Here's the thing about your run-of-the-mill internet trolls. A lot of them have a spouse and kids, a mortgage, and a 9-5 job. You wouldn't peg them as political extremists. They keep that side of them contained to the internet. That's why I think it's a mistake to dismiss internet extremists as fringe trolls with no real political clout. This time last year, I was working at a Spectrum call center. My life IRL is INCREDIBLY boring, painfully so much of the time. A lot of people unleash their most genuine selves in the relative anonymity of the internet. It's important to distinguish fringe trash from more mainstream ideas. That's not always easy, but it's made easier when you see prominent political/business figures sharing space with actual, Swastika-brandishing Nazis.

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

But still, conservatism is the notion that good things need to be preserved, and liberalism/progressivism is that stuff needs to be fixed with new solutions.  Surely you can see that conservatives are more resistant to such things? 

Conservatives were resistant to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s because they wanted certain things (like racial purity) preserved. Needless to say, I don't always trust the conservative definition of what's "good". Not when I have trans friends afraid to pee in public and female friends in my former home of Texas who want kids, but are terrified of having pregnancy complications and dying because a doctor can face criminal charges for terminating a pregnancy to save the mother's life. Liberalism spearheaded the labor movement that ended child factory labor and created humane working conditions and fairer compensation for workers. Liberalism won women the right to vote. We don't get everything right, but neither has your side, historically speaking. I don't think it's a coincidence that the bluest state I've lived in (MD) wasn't the best one I've called home, but blueish-purple Minnesota is. Left and right need each other, and they need to be able to peacefully coexist. 

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 I look at the last 5 years of vaccine mandates backed by force, laws enacted that enable males to invade female spaces, laws enabling school counselors to help a kid transition to another gender while keeping it secret from the parents.  I look for right-wing analogies to those things, and don't find any.

How about school districts talking about performing genital inspections on minors? How about pregnant women with complications being refused life-saving care because the pregnancy is in the third trimester and still considered "viable" because of a fetal heartbeat? How about full-time workers living on food stamps while their employer's CEOs go to outer space? Are these things "good"? Because that's where modern conservatism is.

I don't believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal record of anything historical any more than I believe that Jesus had divine power or authority, but I believe that there are great lessons to be learned from both (and many other religions, theist and otherwise). Religion radicalized me in ways that confound people like you. I was radicalized by the teachings of Jesus. I was radicalized by the first chaper of 4 Nephi. I believed, and still do, that the world described in that chapter is worth pursuing, with or without divine inspiration. I also believe that the biggest obstacle to that is described quite well in that chapter, beginning with verse 23. Reading that chapter as a child gave me a crucial piece of the blueprint that would make up my post-LDS worldview. But I grew up and realized that most Christians, Mormons included, have gotten too comfortable sitting at tables that Jesus would have flipped. I may be an atheist, but I know good moral lessons when I see them.

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not in a nation where Trump is talking about eliminating the Department of Education for pete's sake. 

I don't think I understand what point you're trying to make here. Is Trump eliminating the DoE (which I think is a terrible idea, but not one based in bigotry or hate) supposed to make me ignore the fact that he created a new government agency and put the world's richest man in charge of it? Is it supposed to make me forget that his first AG pick is facing allegations of statutory rape and drug use? Is it supposed to make me feel better about the notions of mass detainments/deportations and protective tariffs?

Edited January 1 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

insights into the way the alt-right thinks and operates

So, that's my thing.  Yes, these horrible people exist.  My point is that calling them right or extreme right or alt-right is silly and dumb and misses what the right is about.  I figure the left wants to paint these folks as somehow associated with me and mine, so they apply the labels.  I figure these folks themselves are running off of ignorance, fear, and hate, and know pretty much nothing about conservatism, so they don't bother to reject the labels.  

I reject the label.  I don't recognize any of these people as "mine".  They're not on my side of the fence.  The stuff they're advocating for, I'm against.  They're not more extreme versions of me.  I realize my voice is in the minority here, but the entire world and all the media and talking heads and opiners and folks with opinions are wrong here, and I'm correct.  Or more to the point, Plato and his theory of forms is more correct.  A chair has 4 legs, a seat, a backrest, and maybe armrests.  Once it replaces one of it's legs with a desire for Trump to torture immigrants, or it's backrest with a policy to imprison transgender people based on their speech, it ceases being a chair.

5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Conservatives were resistant to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s because they wanted certain things (like racial purity) preserved. Needless to say, I don't always trust the conservative definition of what's "good".

Agreed, and me neither.  My point is: When the right gets extreme it doesn't go fascist or authoritarian - it turns into a conspiracy nut flying a flag and waving a shotgun out of his 2nd story window demanding to be left alone.   When the left gets extreme they go fascist and authoritarian - because you need power and government force at your back to implement the changes you want. 

Jordan Peterson's comments on the American right and left are pretty on point, and I think you might agree:

5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

How about school districts talking about performing genital inspections on minors? How about pregnant women with complications being refused life-saving care because the pregnancy is in the third trimester and still considered "viable" because of a fetal heartbeat? How about full-time workers living on food stamps while their employer's CEOs go to outer space? Are these things "good"? Because that's where modern conservatism is.

You're absolutely correct when you talk in your other post about how hard it is to avoid arguing from the extremes.   I think you can already guess the answer to most of these, but for the record: 

- Fighting radical gender theory in our schools mean administrators need to come up with and defend a policy that gives the most amount of benefit and the least amount of harm.   I'm not a huge fan of school administrators, and I'm certainly not willing to defend extreme examples.  But I understand the position they are in, and you should also.

- The vast, vast, VAAAAAAAAST majority of abortions being elective, and medically necessary abortions number in perhaps maybe what, a dozen a year?  With most of those coming with a host of preceding problems like addictions and bad choices.  The last 3 media-boosted horror stories about women having to flee to another state for their "life-saving care" that I looked into, failed to hold up under scrutiny into the personal details.  One was plain old elective with the chick just lying on social media and getting called out by people who knew her.  The other two were women who got themselves into a life-risk situation with their fringey and unsupportable medical opinions that put them in risk because they didn't believe in things like well-baby checkups or taking their prenatal vitamins.   My advice here is for you to be highly skeptical whenever you hear the claim "I can't get life-saving care because of my state's abortion laws".  99 times out of 100, it's untrue and boosted by the agenda driven.  Find me the 10 states with most restrictive laws, and I'll find you their exceptions for rape/incest/life of the mother/viability of the child.

- As for poor workers and rich employers, I'll remind you of my earlier comments.  You have to identify anywhere in recorded human history where there hasn't been an accumulation of the most by the few.  Everywhere.  All the time.  USSR and their elites with their dachas.  Communist China and their supreme leaders with all the power living in golden palaces.  The plains Indians right before the colonizers showed up, with their chiefs having all the women and first pick of the best food.  Everywhere.  All the time.   The glory of capitalism and modern conservatism is people have the greatest amount of choice to improve their personal situations through individual effort.  Better than socialism.  Better than any other -ism.  Corruption and evil seeps in everywhere, with every system.  Your dreams of some utopia will never, NEVER come to play, because you're dealing with humans, and humans will work in their self-interest, sometimes in evil and horrible and murderous ways, no matter what the system.   Capitalism is as fatally flawed as all the rest, but as someone who has lived on food stamps as a child, my life has afforded much more opportunity to gain advantages and resources and privilege than most other places in the world.  And so has yours.  And so have all the historically marginalized groups with special problems we all hear about.  Yes, it's good that an immigrant can use his brain power to build a car and then shoot it into space.   And it's good that we have education and job training and endless resources for anyone on food stamps who wants a better life for themselves. That's very, very good.  

Right?

[Carborendum]

24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That is 100% true.

Freedom of speech allows for the worst most ridiculous ideas to be brought forth into the public square.  But without all of that extremity, we cannot find the absolute, glorious truth that will eventually show itself.

I think that we don't really recognize truth that often.  But we can certainly understand when something sounds ridiculous.  And it is only after we get fed up with the ridiculous do we recognize the truth that has been there all along, but it just didn't appeal to us until it was against the backdrop of that which we know to be false.

[zil2]

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, that's my thing.  Yes, these horrible people exist.  My point is that calling them right or extreme right or alt-right is silly and dumb and misses what the right is about.  I figure the left wants to paint these folks as somehow associated with me and mine, so they apply the labels.  I figure these folks themselves are running off of ignorance, fear, and hate, and know pretty much nothing about conservatism, so they don't bother to reject the labels.  

I reject the label.  I don't recognize any of these people as "mine".  They're not on my side of the fence.  The stuff they're advocating for, I'm against.  They're not more extreme versions of me.  I realize my voice is in the minority here, but the entire world and all the media and talking heads and opiners and folks with opinions are wrong here, and I'm correct.

This, a hundred times over!

33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

My point is: When the right gets extreme it doesn't go fascist or authoritarian - it turns into a conspiracy nut flying a flag and waving a shotgun out of his 2nd story window demanding to be left alone.   When the left gets extreme they go fascist and authoritarian - because you need power and government force at your back to implement the changes you want. 

And this!

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Your dreams of some utopia will never, NEVER come to play, because you're dealing with humans...

Actually, the Lord will bring this.  But guess what.  Even He and those living with Him in their midst won't be able to maintain it (and boy that ought to tell you something).  By the end of the Millennium, it will collapse.  The last of those destined to this planet will battle the same battle we've been fighting since we got here, and then we'll go off, each to live in the separate sphere s/he has chosen, for eternity.

41 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Right?

Amen!

[Vort]

On 1/1/2025 at 9:25 AM, Phoenix_person said:

On 1/1/2025 at 7:45 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I scoured your paragraph for the evidence supporting your claim that Christian nationalism was on the rise.  I saw only your assertions that you can find people on social media who might feel favorably about legislating Christian morality, and you can find threads of racism in their speech, and you figure a bunch of 'em vote for Republicans.

Expand  

Then look for it yourself. Seriously. [...] That's about the extent to which I'm willing to go to help you find the pond scum in the GOP pool. If you really want to find it, happy hunting. The days of me digging through the trash for you are done, respectfully.

2025 debate technique:

Make any assertion you want—literally anything, the more far-fetched or absurd, the better. Then, when someone asks you for evidence of your ridiculous assertion, simply tell them that they need to get off their fat butt and go find out for themselves, because you sure as heck aren't going to do their work for them.

This technique is really brilliant. Not only do you get to make your unsupported point without having to defend it (a huge win when your point is indefensible), but you also get to preach most righteously that you "are done" finding the information for them that they should rightfully have already found for themselves, the lazy bums.

[Vort]

On 1/1/2025 at 9:25 AM, Phoenix_person said:

I was radicalized by the first chaper of 4 Nephi.

You sure it wasn't the second or third chapters of 4 Nephi?

[Carborendum]

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Fair enough. I unequivically denounce calls for genocide, including those used by Palestinians and their supporters. FTRTTS is not a phrase that I have ever used or ever would, and I acknowledge that while many leftists have used it as a rallying cry for peace in Gaza and not genocide, it's important to recognize the true meaning and origins of words and slogans. It's a concept our side tried to remind yours of when "America First" was making a comeback in our national vocabulary.

That's very easy for you to say from your armchair as virtually all your fellow leftists cry it out with freedom and full knowledge of what it means.

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

That answer is complicated by the fact that yes, bombing both countries was justified, but we lacked the technology for precision strikes that we have today. THAT'S been one of the biggest critiques of the IDF's methods against Hamas. They have the best military technology in the world (because we gave it to them), but they're still leveling entire neighborhoods to get a small handful of Hamas extremists. It's been over a year, with thousands dead, and Hamas arguably isn't any more defeated than it was on 10/6/23. So where's the justification to continue leveling Palestinian communities?

Do you realize that this is a self-defeating argument?

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

And for the record, while I agree that military retaliation against Japan was necessary, I believe dropping nukes on civilians amounted to a war crime. I understand that there was always going to be collateral damage waging a war like that with the limitations of 1940s technology. I don't buy the notion that there was no viable alternative to nuclear weapons.

It's funny that you'd call it a war crime today against your own country.  But the Japanese have pretty much forgiven the US as a nation over it.  One reason is that they (the Japanese) are well aware of the mentality that they had during the end of WWII.  If we hadn't dropped the bomb, the nation would never have recovered, and they know it.

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

The last remnants of WWII refugees aren't living in refugee camps 80 years later. Why? Because they created an entire new group of refugees in the Middle East, with a Western sanction. Why did Jewish refugees get Western help with resettling and Palestinian refugees did not? Japan and Korea settled their differences, but at the end of the day they still had sovereign nations to go home to.

WRONG.  It is because they gave up and admitted that they started it and we finished it.  They were prepared to start over and rebuild.  Did we help?  Of course we did.  And Israel is ready to do the same thing.  They've done it a dozen times over.  But Hamas keeps using all the aid to rebuild their militant efforts to destroy Israel.  There is no forgiveness in their hearts.  Even after Israel gave up both the West Bank and Gaza, AND they've made multiple offers to help them rebuild their infrastructure and give humanitarian aid, they still want to destroy the Jews.

Why do you think all the other Muslim nations in the region won't take them in?

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Israel was an apartheid state for years. I don't necessarily buy the notion that it still is, but citizenship does not entitle one to fair and equal treatment under the law. Just ask any black American 70+ years of age or older.

70+ years...

• I don't think anyone believes that Racism in the US was NEVER a reality.
• I don't think anyone believes that it doesn't exist in the US today "in any way shape or form with zero percentage of the population who is actually stupid enough to practice it."
• I think that what you believe about the reality of racism in America TODAY is an extreme exaggeration from reality.

You might find this enlightening:

BLACK Harvard Professor OBLITERATES BLM's "Racist Police" NARRATIVE!

Summary:

• A black Harvard Professor was out to prove that Blacks are more likely to be victims of unjustified police shootings.
• Method: He collected all the case files and police records he could find on police shootings and interactions with the public.
• Finding: There was no difference in police shootings.
• Disbelief: He refused to believe the results were correct.  So, he fired his whole staff of black interns, hired all new people to go over the numbers.  Same result.
• Special note: He did find that blacks were more likely to be "roughed up" and/or "harassed" by police.  And because he was willing to admit that unjustified police shootings were not disproportionate, the police departments did listen to him about the roughing up and harassment.  And they are working on systemic changes for that weakness.

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

I'm not accusing him, specifically, of anything. He represents a class of people who are very good at making sure profits continue to be put over people in every aspect of American life. The reason I vote Democrat is because while I see plenty of complicity in their party in perpetuating American corporatism, I also see people in power ready to take the party in a more people-centered direction. I don't see that in the GOP. 

You pointed him out, specifically.  And this paragraph seems to, specifically, accuse him of something.  But you're not accusing him of anything...

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

And besides, we all know that corporate CEOs aren't the puppet masters. They're accountable to investors, and I generally don't trust anyone whose singular goal is to make as much money as possible. I don't think that's an ethical way to live. Our world is run by inherently unethical people. 

Again, Obamacare caused a LOT more problems than it solved.

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

If some people on my side had their way, there wouldn't be. Just sayin'. 🤷‍♂️ Trump's not going to fix that, and Wall Street knows it.

No, he can't fix it.  But he can do some things that will allow corporations to fix it themselves.  But thanks to Obamacare, even the bleeding heart CEO (yes, there are some) cannot make sufficient changes to give you what you want.

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

To be clear, this is what we mean by holding government accountable. It's literally just using existing structures of accountability as designed.

You mean like making up a charge that didn't exist solely to keep someone from becoming President again?  Those systems?

On 12/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Phoenix_person said:

How'd that work out in 2008? How's it working out now with our profit-centered health care system and a housing market being manipulated by private equity? I trust free market capitalism about as much as you trust government bureaucracy. At least we can sometimes fire the bureaucrats if they prove to be more trouble than they're worth.

The healthcare system (at least not specifically) was not the problem.  It was a systemic problem that was seeded by the Clinton administration and it took about 7 or 8 years to come to fruition.

It was a genius move for Clinton to claim the responsibility for the short term gain and blame capitalism for the downfall.

Edited January 8 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

BLACK Harvard Professor OBLITERATES BLM's "Racist Police" NARRATIVE!

Summary:

• A black Harvard Professor was out to prove that Blacks are more likely to be victims of unjustified police shootings.
• Method: He collected all the case files and police records he could find on police shootings and interactions with the public.
• Finding: There was no difference in police shootings.
• Disbelief: He refused to believe the results were correct.  So, he fired his whole staff of black interns, hired all new people to go over the numbers.  Same result.
• Special note: He did find that blacks were more likely to be "roughed up" and/or "harassed" by police.  And because he was willing to admit that unjustified police shootings were not disproportionate, the police departments did listen to him about the roughing up and harassment.  And they are working on systemic changes for that weakness.

Yep.  This story pretty much ended all the 'police systematic racism' arguments out there.