In recent years that liberal/progressive side of the American political spectrum has tried to make the claim that the DFL and liberal/progressives in general stand for certain things.
Things like.
Freedom
Choice
Non violence/pacifism
Free speech
Better education
Improved race relations
Civility in politics
Yet everywhere we look we see the opposite.
The only free choice the left will fight for is to choose to have abortions..
As we look at all of the protests over the past 10 years how many of the violent protests, riots, or sieges been undertaken by conservatives for conservative causes. FYI lets compare how Tea Party protesters behaved and left the site of their rallies as opposed to the Occupy folks.
Where do we see free speech being stifled and limited? Liberal universities. What do they do if they can't intimidate the school or speaker to cancel? Threaten or engage in violence.
Let's do some correlation between school districts with poor performance of voting patterns. Why is it impossible to break the bond between the teachers unions and te DFL?
Recently there has been a news story about some racial threats at a local university. This particular institution is a hotbed of liberal thought, (my current AmeriCorps member graduated from this school and is a self described "bleeding heart liberal") much more liberal than the already left leaning universities in the country. The story was about the outrage caused by racist, threatening notes left on peoples cars. The school jumped out and talked about how the doer would be punished and there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Until they found out that in was one more hoax. All of a sudden, the hoaxer was going to get off with a less severe punishment, and ..... You get the drift. Of course, all the cities full of "institutional racism" are cities where the institutions are controlled by the DFL. I could go on, but why.
Again, we've lust seen an instance where a school yearbook (Teachers unions support what political philosophy), in one of the most blue of the blue states, contained a page where one of the students wanted to (nonviolently) decapitate President Trump. We just saw that 92% of all the news stories about Trump have been negative. We see DFL members of congress ready to begin impeachment proceedings irregardless of the results of any investigations. Again, there are more examples than I could list here.
I could be mistaken, but it sure seems like the American political left has done a 180 and has embraced the opposite of what they've always claimed to stand for.
Maybe they just need to be more honest about what they stand for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
I don't know if you saw this, but it's similar to what your post notes.
It's really remarkable how what they do is so opposite what they say. What's worse is how blatant it all is, how easy it is for non-liberals to see it. Note how one particular "progressive" protests the conclusions at which we cannot help but arrive over and over again when reading his own words. We are accused of poor comprehension, failure to understand, ignorant of definitions...whatever...yet, no amount of "clarification" changes the outcome. Our conclusions remain the same. And this is also true of the manner in which he engages with us, how his manner is opposite of what he demands of us...be it in terms of producing evidence, data, etc.
Note their favored self-identifying term "progressive". Most everything they support demonstrates no progress whatsoever, as most everything they support have been proven failures since the dawn of time. It's all a lie and those who push the leftist agenda are therefore liars...to others all the time, and so very often to themselves as well as they insist on believing what never bears the fruit they hope to harvest.
Definitely, you'd like to call it hypocritical but it's somehow more insidious than that. It's an almost complete disconnect between their ideals and their actions. I realize that none of us live up to the standard we'd like to, but to claim a standard, not live up to it, and pretend as if you do is just crazy.
As for Dan, he's always expected more of those he disagrees with than of himself. Which is bad enough, but the fact that he chooses to pretend otherwise.,,
The caution I offer is that the history of the right is that it acts like the shadow of the left, following it into the grave. If you look at where the right stands today in comparison to where the left stood 50 years ago, the left would be farther right than today's right. That is, we should be cautious about thinking "the right is better" when the right tends to simply move into the space the left has vacated.
I'm not suggesting that the right is "better" or worse. I'm suggesting that the left has moved so far from many of the ideals that defined it as a movement, that claiming that those ideals still hold true is simply a lie.
It seems clear that many 60's leftists would be conservatives by today's standards, and that the right is moving to fill the vacuum. But so far, the left is where things have move 180 degrees on things like free speech.
It's less about where things are and more about where they claim things are.
I also don't think you can ignore the attempts on the left to portray the right as the party of x,y, or z when the reality is that the things they blame others for are primarily happening on their side of things.
I'm not seeing conservatives rioting, threatening and stifling free speech. That's pretty exclusively on the left at this point. When the media is complicit in putting out this false narrative, it's pretty frustrating.
The only free choice the left will fight for is to choose to have abortions.
You have misspoken, of course... this is demonstrably false. We fight for the freedom to choose/the right to...
1. The right to marry who you wish.
2. The right to imbibe in marijuana if you wish, without fear of being imprisoned.
3. The right to clean air.
4. The right to clean water, generally in the world.
5. The right to clean drinking water.
6. The right to retain our mountains.
7. The right to good work at a reasonable wage.
8. The right to protest that with which you disagree and think may cause harm.
9. The right to quality education.
10. The right to affordable basic health care.
11. The right to make choices for yourself in terms of the clothes you wear.
12. The right to decide for yourself if you are a male (even if you were born with female genitalia) and vice versa.
13. The right to NOT be raped, oppressed or harassed.
14. The right to decide for yourself who you do or don't listen to (ie, no forced "free speech" upon you, you can get up and leave and sometimes, perhaps should).
15. The right to safe streets, free from speeding cars or blasting music.
How long would you like me to go on? Would you perhaps like to admit that, of course, the Left is still in favor of freedom of choice in all manner of areas?
The good thing is that these freedoms of choice that we work for and believe in work both ways (except in the cases of harm).
Yes, we want the right to choose who we marry, but YOU get that same right, too. Yes, we want the right to choose our own medical treatments, but YOU get that same right, too. Yes, we get to choose to not have sex or harassment upon us, but YOU get that same right, too. (But you don't get to choose to inflict sex, abuse or harassment upon someone else).
Yes, of course we fight for and believe in the right of free choices.
Care to correct that claim?
~Dan
I guess, that while hyperbole thing is lost on you when you aren't using it to hide behind. But let's look at your list.
1. No, not true. The fight is limited to "monogamous" gay folks.
2. Ok, as if unlimited pot use is a good and healthy thing. Unfortunately the left wants to legislate the right of people to imbibe legal substances out of existence.
3. Yes, because the right is anti clean air.
4. Again, see above.
5. Do you think repeating your self counts as two separate points? You must be referring to the evil conservative right wing nuts who poisoned the water in Flint and Corpus Christie
6. Yes, because the right is anti mountain.
7. Without regard to the potential jobs lost or hours cut.
8. Protests that include; rioting, looting, physical attacks on police and innocent bystanders, Molotov cocktails, sieges, and various verbal attacks on those they disagreements.
9. You mean by forcing as many students as possible into sub standard schools? Sub 50% graduation rates, education below grade level, tenure rules that benefit bad teachers and penalize their students? Trying to deny innovation and choice in education.
10. Like denying people the ability to choose the type of health insurance they want, making health insurance rates and deductibles increase by double digit %, by denying people the right to choose to be uninsured if they want.
11. This is really plumbing the depths of stupid, and I don't know how to avoid climbing down into the stupidity.
12. You mean the "right" to pretend to ignore biology. Or the right to a 40% higher suicide rate? Or the right to force others to agree with someone's delusion.
13. Stupid. Of course this ignores the fact that rape, oppress, and harassment are tolerated and protected in Muslim countries
14. Again, stupid. Unless you somehow mean that engaging in threats of violence as well as actual violence is the way to protect delicate ears and psyches from being exposed to anything that might go against ones indoctrination.
15. You really want to deny people the right to express themselves through their driving style and music choices.
I have to note that the majority of your points either do not involve "choice" or involve denying or forcing others to make choices they might want to make. I also have to note, that nowhere in your list do you demonstrate that the point of my post is wrong. Nowhere do you even acknowledge the excesses that the left is engaging in, let alone condemn them.
In short, your comment demonstrates my point exactly, you want to claim some sort of idealistic leftism that probably never really existed, while ignoring the indisputable fact that modern leftism is all about violence, force, coercion, and control.
if you want to live in a fantasy world and ignore the real world data that's out there for all to see, go right ahead, just don't expect to be considered credible.
No, I feel no need to correct my hyperbole. I also have no expectation that you'll correct yourself.
One specific example recently, clearly the students at ND had every "right", to walk out of their graduation ceremony because they didn't want to have the slightest, tiny possibility that Mike Pence would say something that might offend them.
But, what about showing a little respect? Respect for; the other graduates, the office of the VP, the university?
Or what about simply acting like any adult who has to sit through something they'd rather not and demonstrate a modicum of self control.
This is a great example of this increasing desire to selfishly exert ones "rights" with no regard for how said display affects anyone else.
I'm suggesting that people have the right to choose to sit and listen AND the right to get up and leave in silent protest. That is a choice. You said we were opposed to choices, there's another example where you're mistaken.
Yes, because the right is anti clean air.
I didn't say anything about the right. I said that WE support keeping the air clean enough so that, if you have asthma or are elderly with breathing problems or otherwise have difficulty breathing in pollution, you can CHOOSE to go outside without, you know, dying and crap. THAT is a choice we support.
We do not support people having the choice to pollute the air to the point where it kills or hospitalizes people. You?
Regardless, you can see that is advocating a positive and healthy choice. Clearly, you are mistaken then, to say that we don't advocate choice.
11. This is really plumbing the depths of stupid, and I don't know how to avoid climbing down into the stupidity.
How so? We support dudes having the options to wear kilts or skirts to places if they want. THAT is a choice - One that many people would oppose. How is it stupid? And do you support that choice?
Which reminds me, we also support people going to the bathroom that aligns with their gender choice. THAT is a choice. Do you support that choice?
You mean the "right" to pretend to ignore biology.
No, I mean the right to choose for themselves their gender identity, regardless of what Craig may think about it or if he chooses to be insulting about it. THAT is a choice we support. Do you?
I could go on, but given that you probably - and many conservatives if not you - disagree with allowing or approving of many of these choices whereas we DO support the choice... I'm just pointing out that you were flatly mistaken. Clearly progressives do support choices beyond women's health care.
I was just assuming you'd welcome having correct data to form your opinions with and would want to change something that you've written in error.
Your call on whether you do or not.
~Dan
they didn't want to have the slightest, tiny possibility that Mike Pence would say something that might offend them.
And, just fyi, people didn't get out because they thought Pence might say something offensive (although, no doubt he did). They walked out in peaceful protest to the dangerous and even deadly policies that Pence represents as part of this dangerous and un-American Trump regime.
Again, in case you're interested in keeping honesty in what you're saying.
~Dan
Interesting that in the face of actual real life examples to back up my points, you offer a bunch of talking points without dealing with the reality of the current situation.
In the interest of a reality check, I never said or indicated that the ND students didn't have the right to protest, just that sometimes it's maybe the respectful and mature course to not place your individual rights above those of others. Of course, you conviently ignore the much more common "protest" which involves violence (either threatened or actual) in order to prevent people from exercising their choice to attend an event.
The very fact that your cherry picking a few examples where you think you might get some traction while avoiding the balance speaks loudly of obfuscation. The fact that you advocate denying people choice, in the name of imposing someone else's version of "choice", continues to demonstrate the degre to which the underlying post is much more accurate than you'd ever admit.
But if embracing the lie helps your self esteem then don't let me stop you.
Of course, you conviently ignore the much more common "protest" which involves violence (either threatened or actual) in order to prevent people from exercising their choice to attend an event.
I didn't deal with much of your stuff not for obfuscation but because there was no need to. I was making a point and I did make a point. I could rebuff each of your qualms and support my position, but why do so? You don't appear prepared to admit you misspoke and 1,000 examples will probably not suffice to make you recant the mistake.
As to those who have engaged in violence, what IS that percentage, as it relates to the millions and millions who are seriously opposed to this narcissistic, lying boy-man? How many people have engaged in violence? 100? 1,000?
In round numbers, over 50% of the US is opposed to Trump. There are 300 million people in the US.
So, that's 150 million opposed to Trump. And, what, 1000? who've engaged in violence?
What's that percentage? Rounding up to .0001%? (Sorry if that's off, math's not my strong suit).
Look, there are no serious progressives who are calling for violent protest. As you rightly note, that is not consistent with our values. That some small percentage behave contrary to liberal values is no more an indication of a problem with ALL liberals than the reality of a small percentage of conservatives behaving violently is indicative of a problem with all conservatives.
Again, I've clearly pointed out that your claim is false. Man up and admit it.
Or not. That's on you.
~Dan
Ok, feel free to justify the violence (FYI it started well before Trump, so blaming Trump won't fly)by trying the small numbers thing. The fact is, just like the rest of your "data", it's just some stuff you've made up. Maybe you just don't watch the news. Maybe things like achievement to grade level and graduation rates are just not important enough to give people more choice. I guess political corruption that results in contaminated water is only a problem if you can blame the "other" side. I get that if you can make those you hate out to be evil, dangerous, deadly, anti American and whatever it allows you to justify the same behavior you decry in others.
I just watched an interview with Maxine Waters where she either unrepentantly or unknowingly proceeded to repeatedly contradict remarks she made earlier. You've got the same problem, your TDS is so bad that you're willing to engage in graceless behavior, and countenance all sorts of things that allegedly go against your ideals.
I'll be fair, I've finally seen a few brave libs publicly come out against the kind of vitriol and hatred you all are spewing and pointing out that you've become what you spent the last 8 years criticizing.
If you're serious that small numbers somehow make it possible to excuse otherwise inexcusable actions, then I guess if only .01% of all high school students don't graduate then that makes it OK. Maybe only .1% of high school students who perform below grade level is a number we can live with.
Honestly, it's pretty amusing to see you argue against, science, reality, and your own ideals to try to "disprove" hyperbole.
Hyperbole? Fair enough. So, it appears that the irony here is that you want to judge liberals as having abandoned our values by judging us by our .0001% outliers:
Yes! .0001% of liberals have embraced rioting and vandalism and the occasional assault. Therefore, liberals have abandoned their values!
That makes so much sense.
...the irony is that you want to say that given this tiny minority of people, WE have abandoned our values, while at the same time conservatives have, in HUGE numbers, elected a lying, cheating, stupid, likely racist (or one who ran for office by inflaming racists) pervert to be president.
Who, then, has actually abandoned their values?
...or you can just make stuff up.
Perhaps you didn't actually read the post I wrote, the par with multiple examples of all sorts. If you want to try to dismiss multiple real world examples in favor of some made up %, you're welcome to do so.
Now you can try the schoolyard trick of justifying your sides excesses, by saying that Trump is so bad that anything is justified no matter how vile. Except, this trend started long before Trump, reality is your problem.
Ultimately my problem more with folks like you who excuse and justify this kind of crap while professing to hold lofty ideals.
The problem you have is with the real world facts, not with my enumeration of some of them and asking a question.
Boy, while that hyperbole thing flummoxed you the whole being unable to distinguish between a question and a statement has plagued you for a while.
Perhaps the problem is that you read into words what isn't there? Where exactly have I excused or justified any bad behavior?
True fact: I have not. Not in the real world.
Can you admit that reality?
What real world facts are you suggesting you've offered?
The problem with your hyperbolic statement is that hyperbole exists to blow up an existing problem to make a point about the problem. This is not a serious problem on the left. You've offered a bunch of nothing and outliers to suggest that it's a sweeping problem. You have NOT offered any data that suggests you're point you're trying to make supposedly with hyperbole is a serious problem across the left.
In the real world, the Left loves and works for free speech, tends to be more promoters of pacifism than the Right (although the Left has never wholly bought into pacifism, just had deep respect for it), for NVDA, for better education, for improved race relations, etc. This is what we do.
That you might cite a few examples that you think are indicative of a deeper problem does not mean that there is a deeper problem. Just that you don't understand Liberals if you think we don't support these ideals.
Look, no one is saying that liberals are perfect in any way. But in the real world, those ARE ideals we do hold to.
Unlike conservatives, who have gladly forsaken family values, basic decency, conservation of our resources, fiscal responsibility or very basic moral lives in their en masse vote for a lying, cheating, disgusting piece of shit pervert. Your side (if not you, personally) has just shit all over your values by electing this man.
I can point to some actual reality that shows a large, sweeping problem (the huge numbers who voted for the pervert). You can't point to a similar set of data to suggest any serious sweeping problem of Liberals abandoning those values you cited.
No, there's no demonstrated problem with me recognizing real world facts. You, on the other hand...
Here, how about demonstrating that you recognize real world facts: DO you recognize that Trump is a huge dump on the notion of truth, decency, family values and basic morality? And that conservatives voting for him have created a huge credibility problem for conservatives on these fronts?
Real world, indeed.
you can try the schoolyard trick of justifying your sides excesses, by saying that Trump is so bad that anything is justified no matter how vile.
Also, again, in the real world, I have not done this. I have never justified the actions of those very few who have rioted. It has not happened.
In the real world, however, YOUR side has justified Trump (along with all his lying, filthy, perverted actions and cons) by voting for him en masse.
But me, I have not done that, not in the real world.
In fact, I have talked about how stupid those who riot are being, how counterproductive, how wrong.
I have not condemned or condoned the actions at some universities. I have not looked at all the details in each case, but I do think there are things to be careful about there. However, saying, "We do not wish to have a KKK Wizard or a Rapist (or whoever) speak at our university..." is not the same as denying them their right to free speech. Just saying, we don't care to hear him here.
Are you suggesting that free speech obliges universities to open their doors to anyone? Those who advocate rape or slavery? How about churches? Should churches be forced to listen to pro-choice speakers, to pro-LGBTQ speakers?
I think there can be lines drawn, allowing people/groups the right to decide for themselves who they want to listen to... especially if the speaker in question is advocating some form of oppression or harm.
Thinking this is not a denial of the value of free speech. It just isn't. Presumably, you agree and don't want your church to be forced to listen to a sermon by Dan or some other person you disagree with.
I could go on, but the point is, in the real world, I've not justified excesses, nor have I or liberals in general abandoned these values. Out of time.
I believe that left-wingers who abhor pollution and rape were among the polluting, raping miscreants that made up the vast majority of "Occupy Wall St" types. That's contrasted with every Tea Party event that featured none of that nonsense. And all that happened way before Trump even ran in the last election.
The left pays tons of lip service to a host of noble principles it routinely fails to embrace in practice. So many right-wing speakers have been forced to cancel their university speaking events. Many of them have been dealing with such nonsense long before Trump ran for office. Ann Coulter's recent situation was only the latest. Michelle Malkin has dealt with all manner of vile correspondence from left-wing buffoons for years. Her ethnicity has been attacked.
While Dan likes to grossly overstate Trump's character flaws, I've never seen him speak against any Democrat exposed for similar flaws, even those who have exposed themselves (Anthony Weiner). While pretending Trump was the worst thing since Cain killed Abel, never did I see Dan refer to the character of his most dangerous opponent, a woman who defended a Trump-like husband as the victim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".
As to universities, the answer is "Yes. They must allow all if they are funded by the government in any way." To pretend that students have the right to deny an invited personage to speak is absolute crap. They have the right to not attend the event...to host a speaker of their own with opposing points of view...to even speak themselves in a CIVIL manner with those who are hosting the event, or even with the object of their disdain. But to shout down such speakers, to protest in a manner that deprives those who care to hear as if their own delicate sensibilities are more worthy is nonsense and a clear example that to the left, free speech is only for them...not to those with whom they disagree.
Indeed, Dan demonstrates the last point with his own unique and self-serving blog policies.
And of course, there are tons of examples of free speech rights being denied to those who oppose the sexual morality that Dan champions in direct rebellion against the God he claims to revere. People have lost jobs, had their businesses destroyed, which has the effect of stifling the free speech rights of others due to fear of similar retribution.
Dan's response thus far has been a perfect example that validates the point of Craig's post. The left speaks of rights. They only care about their own.
FACT: You two are pointing to isolated incidents that do not have numbers attached to them to indicate how many progressive types approve/endorse/agree. These are the outliers and are almost certainly a significant minority... you certainly can't prove otherwise.
FACT: I'm pointing to the data that shows HUGE numbers - a large percentage - of conservatives supporting a pervert, a liar, a cheat, a gambler, a pig, a sexual assailant, an ignorant man-boy... but at least he'll vote for the right supreme court justice. Conservatives have indeed, by and large, surrendered any high moral ground they may once have perhaps had. They have, indeed, abandoned their values and will hopefully one day rue it and repent.
Perhaps soon.
Do you all recognize that reality?
~Dan
Every example in the original post is a real world factual event. You've excused and justified bad behavior both by your silence as well as by offering the "Well Trump is really bad," excuse. Which ignores the fact the much of this predates Trump.
The fact that you try to paint the denial of free speech at various universities as people not wanting to hear rapists or whatever is more evidence that I'm on the right track.
First. The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK has the right to free speech and public marches that dog won't hunt.
Second. Your talking about student groups who chose to invite speakers to speak at private events. Not public or even like a graduation ceremony. Yet the response is to threaten or engage in violence in order to stifle speech and choice.
I get that you and Maxine don't understand what the concept of a double standard looks like and how silly you both look.
Again, much of what I cite predates Trump, therefore the connection you want so desperately cannot exist.
As for the rest, I don't consider year after year of substandard education thanks to the lefts control of public education to be an outlier. Nor do I consider years of liberal control of institutions filled with "institutional racism", to be trifling.
If blaming others somehow helps you cope, I can't help that. But ignoring the reality doesn't seem healthy.
It's interesting that you dismiss actual events in favor of "data", that you've just conjured out of thin air.
Much like your inability to demonstrate what you claim is demonstrable, your reliance on unsourced unsupported "data" leaves large holes in your arguments.
"I'm pointing to the data that shows HUGE numbers - a large percentage - of conservatives supporting a pervert, a liar, a cheat, a gambler, a pig, a sexual assailant, an ignorant man-boy..."
OK... I'll that HUGE number and raise you the larger number that supported a woman who enabled "a pervert, a liar, a cheat, a gambler, a pig, a sexual assailant, an ignorant man-boy..." A woman with her own major character flaws. In addition, I'll add to that the numbers of people like you who supported an avowed socialist which results in the Venezuela's of the world. We know Hillary lies and cheats. We know Obama has lied and cheated. You're hung up on that which Bill Clinton and Clinton associates are also guilty. Indeed, as I said earlier, you never opine on the perversions of left-wing politicians. NEVER.
What's more, you expect that everyone should allow a worse person to become president in order to deny the low character person you like least. Talk about arguing in bad faith!!
Do I recognize the reality that Trump is a flawed sinful human being, sure. His flaws are why I didn't vote for him. Am I willing to extend him grace, support policies I agree with, opposing those I don't agree with, sure. Am I going to constantly refer to him in the most negative possible terms and use my dissatisfaction with him as an excuse for all sorts of nasty behavior, no. Will I blame him for things that happened before he became president, no. Will I make character judgements about people who voted for him, and assume facts not in evidence about them, no.
But you will.
If you gentlemen would like to talk about my actual ideas and beliefs, please let me know. If it's more fun to beat down strawmen arguments, well, I wish you well. Have fun.
One thought, though: Yes, there have certainly been some identifying as liberals who've vandalized and misbehaved in that manner. That TINY fraction of a minority does not represent liberalism well and they should stop.
At the same time, those who kill (like the Portland killer this week) or assault (like the Montana representative this week) or call for assault (like Trump has in the last year) are a tragic skid mark on the panties of the GOP.
The difference between the two? The tiny minority of liberals misbehaving are largely nameless, non-leaders in the liberal movement. The liberal movement overwhelmingly rejects that sort of violent behavior.
On the other hand, it is the leadership in the conservative wing that is calling for violence and inciting violence - and deadly violence, at that (at least that's what it comes to, over and over again). You can't keep calling liberals and the media "the enemy" and "I'd like to punch 'em!" without your followers acting on your words.
Yes, conservatism truly has abandoned their values, sold them out to the racists and murders and sexual predators of the world.
~Dan
Of course, if you'd like to actually deal with the real life examples I mention in the post rather than try to minimize the reality as a way to justify things feel free. It's interesting that in your desperate attempt to establish an equivalence you manage to pull out 3 individuals as a contrast to the thousands who've rioted, looted, and assaulted in the name of various liberal causes. This combined with your constant "blame Trump for things that happened before he was even a candidate" foolishness really calls into question your ability to put aside your Trump-hatred and political commitment to honestly assess the reality of the situation. Your tepid minimization of the carnage left in the wake of the various liberal "protests", and attempts to contrive a false equivalence to the actions of individuals once again demonstrated the point of the original post.
But thanks so much for giving me an answer to my question.
If you gentlemen would like to talk about my actual ideas and beliefs, please let me know. If it's more fun to beat down strawmen arguments, well, I wish you well. Have fun.
And in case you don't know what in the world I'm talking about, just for instance...
This combined with your constant "blame Trump for things that happened before he was even a candidate" foolishness
I literally have never done this. I have not brought this up, you have. It's not my words you're debating, it's not my arguments you're denying. You're making up charges against that me that have nothing to do with what I've said.
And, ironically, you do it, while doing just what you're suggesting I'm doing.
You minimize the violent assaults and murders on your side by trying to compare them to the vandalism of some few liberals... the violence and inciting of violence by your leaders, vs some hooligan kids, most likely, NOT the leaders of liberal ideas.
Anyway, have fun with your straw men.
Dan
To what violent assaults and murders do you refer, Dan? Like cop killings by leftist BLM people? That Montana politician is a truer example of an anomaly than the current spate of rioting lefties.
That Portland murderer is a neo-nazi, which is a socialist ideology, meaning "leftist", not "right-wing". I read a piece about it that claimed his Facebook page showed him "participating" in "right-wing rallies" without citing what rallies it means. If they are also neo-nazi rallies, they are not right-wing, but leftist. I know you lefties falsely claim Nazis are right-wingers, but honest people don't buy it.
And as you do so often with regard to Trump and his character, you overstate his "inciting of violence". I've never heard him say anything that wasn't simply to not be afraid to defend against the lefties who have proven themselves to be low class.
Ok, you've literally offered Trump as the reason why the folks in your side are so out of control, yet much of what prompts this post predates Trump. If you can't even recognize what you've written in this thread, how can you expect to be taken seriously. Of course, in your world, pointing out the factual difference between the actions of individuals and the acts of thousands (or of unions/governmental entities) is minimizing something. You're the one who after multiple posts finally decided to cover yourself by throwing in some tepid line about "they shouldn't..."
It's this kind of thing that makes folks wonder if you actually understand reality.
One other suggestion if you want to see tolerant libs in action is to peruse the comments section on conservative social media posts (Matt Walsh, Conservative Millennial for 2 examples). Threats of rape, violence and death aren't uncommon and ad hominem attacks are par for the course.
For all of the language about the GOP and Trump being fascist, we've seen the DFL governor of our state use his line item veto to defund the legislative branch (constitutionally co-equal) as a way to force them to remove some budget provisions that he doesn't like. Mind you, these provisions were negotiated with him and he signed the bills, but now wants to force his way.
But no, it's the right who want to take over.
Remember when a conservative comedian posed with the severed head of P-BO?
Remember when a conservative was quoted in a high school yearbook saying that they wanted to behead P-BO?
Remember when a conservative rapper shot P-BO in a music video?
I don't either, but these are all things that the left thought were appropriate and should be done. Of course, now that they've been called out, there is some CYA going on, but the fact that this stuff gets into the public domain speaks volumes. The fact that the tolerant, pacifist, leftists out there don't immediately speak against this says more.
Indeed, Craig. But when their feet are put to the fire, they insist they opposed such stuff all along. But they're never as quick to offer their opposition without that fire by their feet, while in the meantime, they rail and hype up the bad behaviors of the right as if it is common and routine and encouraged by the rest of us.
It's also usually pretty tepid and involves blaming someone or something else. For example "Of course they rioted, because racism/slavery." Or " But Trump is such an evil person.". It's what you get when you abandon civil political disagreement in favor of demonization of your opposition.
A great example of this, I think, is the fact that during the primaries when there were 35 Republican candidates for president Dan announced in total seriousness that absolutely none of them were qualified to be president. His reasoning was that they all had some significant moral or ethical difficulty that completely 100% disqualified them for the office of the presidency. As this attitude becomes more common place among the political class, it becomes easier to justify tactics that are more and more despicable. Once you convince yourself that the opposition is evil and must be destroyed at all costs, Then you allow your self and those on your side to engage in all sorts of things that you perhaps wouldn't normally do.
As you certainly would agree, moral integrity is important. One risks greatly by ignoring the moral quality of a candidate, preferring to believe that every campaign promise can be trusted when low character should compel one to believe otherwise. But as we have seen in this past election, we had one candidate who not only possesses questionable character, but favored harmful policies that she promoted for years. She already acted in according to her questionable character. Why would I not act to prevent her success?
Dan insists that Trump's character alone is the only consideration for a voter in that situation. It doesn't matter how badly Clinton would harm the nation, how much more we would suffer than we already are! At least we don't have a lecher in office! How can perceptions about electing a lecher outweigh the suffering of the nation from electing the lecher's opponent? I still can't see it and have no crisis of conscience having voted accordingly. I lost the lesser of two evils (of several evils, actually) game during the primaries. A new game began when the presidential campaign began.
Don't you mean, that we wouldn't have another lecher in office?
I just heard an interesting take on the connection between the political left and violence, as part of a discussion about the recent severed head controversy.
One point that was made, is that if you look at the recent spate of either discussion or photographs about beheading Trump, it's hard not to draw a pretty straight line to Al Qaeda.
The second point is that when you look at how leftists and violence go together, one only needs to compare the American Revolution to the French revolution. If we look at the results of the French Revolution much of the rhetoric from the leaders is similar to the rhetoric we hear from the political left today. Lots of talk about reason and science and that sort of thing. But if we look at the results of the French revolution and compare that to what we are seeing today, it certainly raises some interesting questions.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/hunting-of-bret-weinstein-evergreen-state/
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, this kind of attack on those who disagree is exactly the kind of thing Dan engages in and is increasingly the direction of American progressives. Essentially, "We don't care about dialogue or finding the truth, we've made up our minds based on personal experience and opinion." is what this generation is learning in academy.
As someone pointed out today a university is designed to unify around the search for the truth, but what we're seeing is diversity of opinion trumps the search for the truth.
These kids are taught the "my truth" nonsense. As such, whatever they prefer to be the truth is the truth and no contrary thought it allowed. It began with moral relativism that at least had the facade that others could think and believe differently.
Yes, it's like Dan defending the millennial piece, he's gone out of his way to excuse the exaggerations and deemed it a "rant" to excuse the lack of factuality in essence choosing to ignore the truth of the situation, but to allow the author to define his own truth.
Post a Comment