CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[Dogmaphobe]

Liberalism has been hijacked by closet commies who have turned it into a form of Death Cult. That is a crying shame.

It's certainly no longer liberal.

True.
The word 'liberal' has gone the way of the words 'gay', 'love' and 'music'.

One of the subsets of my fascination with this whole topic is how liberalism turned like it did. My current theory, such as it is, it that relatively small movements within larger movements can essentially direct those movements through sheer will. And that goes back to the topic of the thread.

It's no more easy to define "liberalism" at this point than "conservatism". The more libertarian elements of the Right have most of the energy, just as the more regressive elements of the Left. So in both cases, both ends (not sides, ends) of the spectrum have completely distorted their side.

Fascinating stuff.
.

Back in the 80s, multiculturalism and identity politics began eating away at liberalism as the guiding force in the left. Since multiculturalism is predicated upon the notion of group rights instead of individual and is invested in preserving the cultural mores of illiberal people, it is actually an archly conservative viewpoint. After all, the "conserve" in conservatism has to do with the desire to conserve social institutions and mores.

Meanwhile, the rise of the neocons influence on the right as a result of disaffected liberals wanting to export liberal values to other countries meant that when unthinking lefties dug in their heels and simply opposed anything they classified as right, they were also opposing some liberal values. People invariable classify neocons as right wing, yet they were actually operating from the desire to liberalize, even if misguided in their approach to such.

 

[flacaltenn]

The reality, though, is that North Korea has military technology that is about 50 years behind us, that they can barely feed their own people, much less their army, and the absolutely scariest thing they could do is collapse into chaos and send 22 million people scavanging for food.

This is way off topic here. And I can't continue. But, an ICBM/nuclear capability is ALL a crazy dictator needs to fix all that.. You're trying to rationalize an untenable vow of aggression and repression..

 

[Picaro]

Liberalism has been hijacked by closet commies who have turned it into a form of Death Cult. That is a crying shame.

It's certainly no longer liberal.

True.
The word 'liberal' has gone the way of the words 'gay', 'love' and 'music'.

One of the subsets of my fascination with this whole topic is how liberalism turned like it did. My current theory, such as it is, it that relatively small movements within larger movements can essentially direct those movements through sheer will. And that goes back to the topic of the thread.

It's no more easy to define "liberalism" at this point than "conservatism". The more libertarian elements of the Right have most of the energy, just as the more regressive elements of the Left. So in both cases, both ends (not sides, ends) of the spectrum have completely distorted their side.

Fascinating stuff.
.

Not really. I think you're confusing the media's distortive imagery with real life. I don't see 'liberalism' as having changed, even among academics I know it is essentially the same as in 1950's-1960's era, Trump's election proves that they're still a voting power, and also that they can only be taken advantage of for so long before they get fed up. You're probably right about them not standing up to the radicals and deviants that now have taken over Party positions and have sent the Party into mindless far left idiocy and treason, but that is because their influence has been shut out for decades now by the 'super delegate rule'; they were the demographic that constantly upset the Party;s wealthy white shoe establishment by hijacking conventions and primaries and getting nominations for patriotic American 'populists' all the time. Dogmaphobe just described the same sort of process going on with 'right wing' factions, where moderates are essentially shut out of the political process altogether on both 'sides'.

Out here in wilderness I don't see that much radical change or fanatical insanity, even among 'millenials' or blacks or latinos that resemble anything the media claims is factual. I do see a lot of apathy and people who don't feel like turning out to vote, especially in the primaries, and the results of those farces are even more alienating to moderates and paleo-liberals. The media hacks glorify what they want to, they have no interest in presenting reality, they're nearly all just propagandists at this point. I saw this trend in journalism schools being unabashedly out in the open by the 1980's at 'Journalism' schools at every university. They make no pretenses at all any more about being 'objective'; just watch that sleazy hack Chris Wallace, or Stephenopolous, are any of the other frauds any Sunday, or NPR, PBS, ad nausaeam.

The good news is, these clown acts have cut their own throats, and their influence is approaching less than zero with most of the country. If they're unhappy now, they're really going to be unhappy with what they created down the road.

 

[JoeB131]

This is way off topic here. And I can't continue. But, an ICBM/nuclear capability is ALL a crazy dictator needs to fix all that.. You're trying to rationalize an untenable vow of aggression and repression..

I agree it's off topic.

NOr was I really arguing that NOrth Korea is a wonderful place to live.

It's just that I'm remembering when another president who got elected under fishy circumstances suddenly said another impoverished third world country was going to "Get us all" and "nuke us" if we didn't do something about it.

So I just can't get all that worked up about it.

 

[JoeB131]

Back in the 80s, multiculturalism and identity politics began eating away at liberalism as the guiding force in the left. Since multiculturalism is predicated upon the notion of group rights instead of individual and is invested in preserving the cultural mores of illiberal people, it is actually an archly conservative viewpoint. After all, the "conserve" in conservatism has to do with the desire to conserve social institutions and mores.

You see, this is where you get confused.

No one is interested in "preserving" the cultural mores of "illiberal" people (Read, people who worship different sky pixies than you do.)

Some of us just realize - and I know this is complicated - that when we interfere in another society's culture, we tend to screw things up through the law of unintended consequences.

To wit. In order to defeat Autocracy, we enable Fascism.
In order to defeat Fascism, we enabled Communism.
In order to defeat Communism, we enabled Jihadism.

Maybe if we just left the Autocrats alone, they'd have evolved into something sensible.

 

[JoeB131]

The good news is, these clown acts have cut their own throats, and their influence is approaching less than zero with most of the country. If they're unhappy now, they're really going to be unhappy with what they created down the road.

Okay, buddy, I realize you are enjoying your delusions, but the fact is, Trump didn't move the needle. He got the same 45-47% who voted for McCain and Romney.

The guy who DID actually try to move the needle was George W. Bush, who tried to expand with his "Compassionate Conservativism"

The reality- there aren't enough angry old white guys to keep the GOP afloat forever. Trump was kind of your last desperate gasp, and it's pretty clear that gasp doesn't know how to govern.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Back in the 80s, multiculturalism and identity politics began eating away at liberalism as the guiding force in the left. Since multiculturalism is predicated upon the notion of group rights instead of individual and is invested in preserving the cultural mores of illiberal people, it is actually an archly conservative viewpoint. After all, the "conserve" in conservatism has to do with the desire to conserve social institutions and mores.

You see, this is where you get confused.

No one is interested in "preserving" the cultural mores of "illiberal" people (Read, people who worship different sky pixies than you do.)

Some of us just realize - and I know this is complicated - that when we interfere in another society's culture, we tend to screw things up through the law of unintended consequences.

To wit. In order to defeat Autocracy, we enable Fascism.
In order to defeat Fascism, we enabled Communism.
In order to defeat Communism, we enabled Jihadism.

Maybe if we just left the Autocrats alone, they'd have evolved into something sensible.

I do not worship sky pixies and I am not confused.

You are simply trolling like you always do. Since the only people who get warned here are those who might react to all your trolling, I will just let you get in the final trolling word, here.

Have at it.

 

[JoeB131]

I do not worship sky pixies and I am not confused.

You are simply trolling like you always do. Since the only people who get warned here are those who might react to all your trolling, I will just let you get in the final trolling word, here.

Have at it.

I think you don't understand the difference between having a conversation and trolling, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, I think you really don't understand how religiously intolerant you come off to people. Now, I've bashed the Catholics and Mormons and Zionists, but I don't try to pretend that my problem isn't with their religion.

Our problem with the Islamic world is not their religion, it's our policies. That you refuse to ever have that conversation is telling.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You have to forgive JoeBitch; he is Reality Challenged.

The reality challenged -- soon to be the latest cause for social justice warriors.

One thing I have noticed on the left is the way virtually nobody ever distances themselves from the lunatics to the point that the lunatics come to define them.

I see many conservatives criticize, say, Westboro Baptist. I never see any leftists take exception to ANTIFA or other leftist extremists, and that despite the fact there are many more of them and they are violent instead of just creepy. .

 

[JoeB131]

The reality challenged -- soon to be the latest cause for social justice warriors.

One thing I have noticed on the left is the way virtually nobody ever distances themselves from the lunatics to the point that the lunatics come to define them.

I see many conservatives criticize, say, Westboro Baptist. I never see any leftists take exception to ANTIFA or other leftist extremists, and that despite the fact there are many more of them and they are violent instead of just creepy. .

Yawn, guy, if you think kids who are genuinely concerned about the rise of fascism under trump are just like the Westboro nuts, then I think you have lost all perspective.

 

[Rustic]

A Pew Report found that combined, “consistent liberals” and “consistent conservatives” make up only 20% of Americans. Yet, unsurprisingly, these are the people most likely to run for office and initiate political discussion. This exaggerates political polarization and limits opportunities for open-minded dialogue between the rest of us. We’ve allowed the fervent minority to drive us into one of two ideological camps, or to become disenchanted and disengaged from politics altogether.

Or they are the only ones who think about the issues to any degree to make the arguments to start with.

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

And by "in flux", I mean, "The bad muslims scared me so I'm going to vote for Bush even though I think he's an idiot" to "I know Trump is a buffoon, but I'm going to vote to Gary Johnson because emails or something.'

Oh, yeah this is the 7% you totally want to pander to. Because they've put so much thought into this.

One issue voter here... the second amendment. If candidates can’t get that right they have no business being there… See Hildabeast

 

[Brian Blackwell]

One issue voter here... the second amendment. If candidates can’t get that right they have no business being there… See Hildabeast

Absolutely, and I would contend that they literally "have no right being there" in the first place, i.e. having a say in what people choose to do when they're not committing acts of aggression against others. Love the signature meme, btw.

 

[JoeB131]

One issue voter here... the second amendment. If candidates can’t get that right they have no business being there… See Hildabeast

Here's the thing, buddy.

The rest of us are tired of watching kids come home in body bags because you guys are obsessed with guns.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The rest of us are tired of watching kids come home in body bags because you guys are obsessed with guns.

I’m with you 100%. So let’s get those guns out of the hands of police and military so citizens won’t need them to secure the freedom of this nation anymore.

 

[Rustic]

One issue voter here... the second amendment. If candidates can’t get that right they have no business being there… See Hildabeast

Here's the thing, buddy.

The rest of us are tired of watching kids come home in body bags because you guys are obsessed with guns.

More frivolous gun laws = more dead kids/people

 

[JoeB131]

I’m with you 100%. So let’s get those guns out of the hands of police and military so citizens won’t need them to secure the freedom of this nation anymore.

I'm sorry, when was the last time the military shot kids?

Guy, the dumbest thing the gun nutters say is "I needs my guns to protect me from the gummit" The government has tanks, they have bombers, they have artillery pieces.

 

[Rustic]

I’m with you 100%. So let’s get those guns out of the hands of police and military so citizens won’t need them to secure the freedom of this nation anymore.

I'm sorry, when was the last time the military shot kids?

Guy, the dumbest thing the gun nutters say is "I needs my guns to protect me from the gummit" The government has tanks, they have bombers, they have artillery pieces.

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, anyway the federal government could never use the military for firearm confiscation, they would have to use the CIA and the like.

 

[JoeB131]

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, anyway the federal government could never use the military for firearm confiscation, they would have to use the CIA and the like.

No, they'd probably just use local law enforcement.

 

[Rustic]

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, anyway the federal government could never use the military for firearm confiscation, they would have to use the CIA and the like.

No, they'd probably just use local law enforcement.

Funny thing is in rural areas were most firearm ownership exists, The local law-enforcement is overwhelmingly pro second amendment too. Lol

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Guy, the dumbest thing the gun nutters say is "I needs my guns to protect me from the gummit" The government has tanks, they have bombers, they have artillery pieces.

There will always be psychos, and there's plenty of ways to hurt people without combat rifles. The logic of disarming millions upon millions of responsible, moral citizens just to deprive a minuscule number of psychos one of a plethora of weapons used to hurt people strikes me as reactionary at best, and downright conspiratorial at worst.

And yes, the government has tanks and such, but there is much more to consider before proposing that 100 million armed Americans have absolutely no chance against a combined police and military of about 3 million; especially considering that many would likely balk at the idea of attacking the citizenry and defect. In any case, it would be silly of us to speculate endlessly along these lines, as the fundamental principle of people having the right to defend themselves is pretty hard to argue. And what good is the right if you don't have the means?

The men who wrote the Constitution, having deeply pondered the laws that would found a nation, seemed to think that an armed citizenry was "...necessary to the security of a free state..." and numerous tyrants have expressed the importance of disarming those who would be dominated. So I'm not sure the infeasibility of an armed resistance against military forces can be asserted without further reflection.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non [a necessary factor] for the overthrow of any sovereignty." - Adolf Hitler

Nevermind the fact that, despite the odds, any self-respecting person would at least want to try to resist tyranny for the sake of themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the future of humanity. Your reasoning suggests that it's an utterly hopeless prospect, so why bother at all; which seems a desperate state, does it not? It leaves us entirely at the mercy of those in power, living by the fool's hope that a power-hungry monster will never gain influence, despite the fact that this has happened innumerable times throughout history.

"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian"
- Murray Rothbard