The point of this post is not to deny the fact that there are people on the right who go to extremes. It's to point out the fallacy that progressives are the "tolerant, inclusive, pacifist" group of folx that some people try to claim. The fact that the evidence of this keeps growing just makes the folx who cling to the myth look more and more pathetic.
It really is ludicrous to pretend that these are outliers, when by comparison there are few parallel cases from the right-wing. This recent story about the Coast Guard dude will be spun as if it is common. It is far less so than violent behavior, or even calls for anything remotely resembling it, by the left.
That’s exactly it. The USCG guy is clearly not representing anything close to a mainstream view, while the number of incidences of progressives advocating and engaging in violence is growing.
But the point still is that anyone who tries to peddle the progressive movement is a predicated on tolerance, inclusion, and pacifism is either lying or stupid.
You guys are so full of s***. Look at the data. There is a real threat from white nationalist and other conservative extremist. There is no serious threat as far as the numbers are concerned from Forecastle to self-identify as Progressive. I mean, those extremists exist, but not in the numbers of Suffolk identified conservative extremists who are thriving right now. Thanks, according to them, to president Trump. Trump is the president who has enabled and empowered and invigorated white nationalist. Y'all have to live with that. Get your head out of your asses
Just because you WANT TO believe something doesn't make it true.
If you're going to post ideas, do it like thinking adults, not scared little rightwing children, too dumb or too scared (or both) to think and reason at an adult level.
Dan, you might want to note that neither of your expletive laced, insult filled comments actually address the point of the post. You might also want to note that even though your comments were off topic and uncivil they both got published.
Let’s not ignore the recent study that seems to indicate that those on the left are more accepting of political violence than those on the right.
After all once you go through the process to decide that it’s ok to “punch a NAZI” and that your political agenda should be advanced by “any means necessary”, you’ve pretty much taken non violence off the table.
re: being off topic... What YOU (and Marshall) literally said...
The USCG guy is clearly not representing anything close to a mainstream view, while the number of incidences of progressives advocating and engaging in violence is growing.
The implication here is that violence is growing and a serious problem amongst the Left, while the poor little sick white racists are just a tiny outlier, misunderstood and not part of your greater political thinking.
The data shows that there IS a problem with white supremacists and violence. I'm NOT saying that violence is part of mainstream conservatism, but white supremacists and other violent conservatives ARE a rising threat, they DO report being empowered by Trump and, I believe, reasonable people can see how it's obvious that Trump is encouraging racists and violence.
I mean, just look at his own God damned words: "Punch him" "I'll pay for your lawyers" He is LITERALLY encouraging violence against the media, liberals, "the elite" and Democrats. In his OWN WORDS. And he IS YOUR SIDE's monster, not ours.
But the point still is that anyone who tries to peddle the progressive movement is a predicated on tolerance, inclusion, and pacifism is either lying or stupid.
The progressive movement IS LITERALLY predicated upon tolerance, inclusion and at least leaning towards more pacifism, it's literally in what we stand for. There ARE violent outliers on both sides, but the DATA shows that your stupid suggestion that violence is something like accepted or mainstream in liberal thought is just a dumb-ass false claim, of the sort that your stupid ass conservative president who is literally encouraging violence and spreading demonizations that lead to violence (like the Coast Guard racist conservative).
WHO on the mainstream Left is actively encouraging violence in the way that YOUR FUCKING CONSERVATIVE IDIOT PRESIDENT is?
There's literally no one. Those who claim to be liberal who are encouraging violence are literally outliers. YOUR "outlier" is in the fucking Oval Office, elected by the vast majority of white conservative evangelicals, NOT by progressives.
Thus, recommending you pull your head out of your fucking ass is EXACTLY addressing the idiotic, non-factual post. Perhaps your head is just too far embedded to see it.
As to SOME on the Left (who are NOT embracing liberal values when they do this) ARE beginning to say things like "Punch a Nazi..." are you even THINKING about what you're writing?
When YOUR SIDE has an increasing number of actual racists and literal fucking Nazis, to see some people respond to such oppressors WITH violence is not entirely unreasonable. I mean, DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT A RACIST IS? A WHITE SUPREMACIST? A NAZI?
Good God! When did conservatives become accepting of literal monsters and denouncing strong reactions to literally Evil behavior and attitudes?
Now, I fully recognize that even Hitler and other actual nazis ARE still human and not actually monsters, but some ideologies that we thought were largely on the ash bin of history because they were SO vile, SO repugnant, SO literally EVIL that no one mainstream would ever legitimize them... So, unless you're a total moral deviant, I would ask you to recognize the difference between strong, even violent opposition to literal evil and just violent responses IN SUPPORT of evil.
Put another way: The racists, white supremacists and Nazis are an evil oppressive force that are violent in nature. THAT must be opposed (and Good God, WHEN will your side start standing strong against them?! SHit!). Violent responses to violent oppressors, I believe, are still wrong and not the way to go.
In short, do you recognize the difference between "punching a Nazi" and violence towards folks because of their color, orientation, religion or national status?
Look at it this way: When the nuns in the Sound of Music stole and vandalized the car parts from the Nazis (or the real life equivalent of that happening), that is funny and righteous. It is right, good and moral to stand against actual oppressors. Of course! (Why do I have to even state that?). Many, back in the day, even thought it was good and moral to kill nazis, probably you would have supported that, yes?
But to do the same thing to a black family or gay people or the press... that is NOT funny, NOT righteous. It would just be evil.
Apples and a Pile of Dung. Two different things. Don't conflate them or compare them.
Despite what the liberal movement might have been predicated on or what it might have once leaned towards, all anyone needs to do is look at the news to see that things have drastically changed in the real world.
No one is denying the existence of violent outliers on the political right, hell it’s a key part of the narrative. But, this post isn’t about that. If you feel the need to use this as justification for the increase in left-wing violence, feel free. But the reality is the this post isn’t about what Trump said or anything else. Nor it is about you assuming that I somehow support political violence. It’s about the fiction that the left is tolerant, inclusive, and nonviolent based on the reality of the current news.
Despite what the liberal movement might have been predicated on or what it might have once leaned towards, all anyone needs to do is look at the news to see that things have drastically changed in the real world.
And that is the delusional lie that you tell yourself to make yourself stay allied with the Party of Perverts and Moral deviants and liars, but it's just not reality.
Your hypocrisy lies in that you will "graciously allow" that the hordes of conservative white racists, white supremacists and Nazis are "outliers" but in considering the trickle of violent liberal outliers to BE actual outliers.
And again, it may not by overt hypocrisy so much as deliberate ignorance, in ignoring the numbers of the rise of conservative extremist groups as documented by law enforcement and other experts and researchers.
No, you're NOT denying the existence of violent conservative outliers... but you make false claims by comparing their numbers to the much smaller incidences of violent liberal outliers.
Can you admit to the reality that you have ZERO DATA - not a God damned bit of research or data - to support your comparison of liberals to violent right wing extremists?
It is NOT a fiction that liberals are tolerant inclusive or nonviolent. I AM PART of these people and I see it every day. It's not a lie, it's the reality on the ground. What IS a HELLISH lie is your suggestion that the outliers somehow define the mainstream of liberal reality. That, and your refusal to recognize that EVEN WITH the liberal outliers who say "punch a Nazi" that they are somehow comparable to the oppression of/attacks upon black, gay, women, liberal or media folk.
Face reality, man. YOUR SIDE has a fucking racist, pervert, liar YOU ALL collectively put into office. The conservative wing is NOW defiantly the wing of perverts, liars, hedonists and racists. The party that makes nazis and white supremacists feel empowered.
Remove the gargantuan sequoia from your eyes, take a stand against the perverts and deviants, liars and racists that infect white evangelical conservative circles... THEN we can talk about the speck in the liberal's eyes.
RE: your second comment, thank you for agreeing that there are folx on the left who are increasingly turning toward violence and increasingly becoming less tolerant, more violent, and less inclusive.
As to your claim that there are actual “literal” NAZI’s in positions of elected or appointed positions of power, you’ll need to provide some actual evidence of this claim before I waste any more time with it. Ditto your racist claim.
RE: your third comment. You are simply making excuses for the increase of violence on the left while hiding behind the fiction that the left is all about tolerance, acceptance, and nonviolence.
When the actual NAZI’s marched in Skokie the whole point of that was to suggest that free speech protects offensive speech. You’re now appearing to suggest (as we’re seeing frequently on the left) that speech you find offensive should be silenced, but also beaten into submission.
It’s understandable that you want to put your personal anecdotal experience over what we see on a weekly basis in the media.
As to the rest, if you want me to argue against your assumptions about me, don’t hold your breath.
If you’d going to make claims, please support them.
FYI, there’s a recent study out there that seemingly disputes your anecdotal experience. I’ll post a link at some point. But it’ll be easier if you just dismiss it before you even see it.
FYI, I do recognize the difference between “punching a NAZI” and lynching black people.
That’s not the point. The point is that you’ve gone from advocating a pure pacifism ( and suggesting that the progressive movement is founded in nonviolence), to advocating or excusing violence when you think it’s necessary.
A while back you used the dripping of the A Bomb to try to make a point.
Well, according to your current “logic”, Trumsn was justified in using “any means necessary” to eradicate a regime of incredible evil.
You’re so bent on justifying the actions of your side, that you don’t notice that your contradicting your own beliefs.
Most conservatives (and rational liberals) agree that force (violence, whatever) is sometimes appropriate and that the strict pacifism you used to advocate is unrealistic.
Instead of justifying “punching NAZI’s”, why not explain how to deal with them nonviolently?
Quotes and links would be appreciated. Or, in the absence of proof, an apology would suffice.
Yes, you are definitely “stronger” in your flinging on verbal excrement, gracelessness, and vitriol. Not exactly why followers of Jesus should be known for, but if that’s what you’re proud of...
Dan I’ll continue to post your comments, if for no other reason than to point out the differences. But, if you’re not going to do what I’ve asked, don’t expect much in the way of responses.
The point is that you’ve gone from advocating a pure pacifism ( and suggesting that the progressive movement is founded in nonviolence), to advocating or excusing violence when you think it’s necessary.
But I have not done so. That you don't understand my position is not evidence that you're stating it correctly now.
Liberals have never been purely pacifists. I have said that they have tended to lean pacifistic, being in support of the Kings, the Gandhis and Jesus and their messages of nonviolence. And, of the two parties, NVDA is more closely associated with liberal groups than with conservative groups, historically speaking (for at least my lifetime).
But liberals are simply not purely pacifist. Never have been. Me? I certainly lean pacifist/towards the ideas and ideals of Just Peacemaking.
And noting that some people WILL respond to oppressors like nazis and racists with violence is not a defense of it.
Also, noting that it's punching a Nazi (because you are opposed to the oppression of Naziism) is not the same as lynching a black man is not a defense of the punching. It's noting that there is a difference between the two groups.
When conservative forces in the US supported the terrorist contras in Nicaragua and some of the Sandinistas responded to the oppression of the Contras with violence themselves, I noted that I would not condemn those fighting against terrorism with violence themselves... I think there's a better way in the ideals of Just Peacemaking, but I'm not in a position to condemn those who are being oppressed and killed by terrorists in responding violently. I GET that self defense is normal and to be expected.
But there is a difference between self defense of the Sandinistan villagers and the oppression of the contra terrorists.
Noting the differences is not the same as supporting violence.
Maybe you can understand that now that I've clarified, but I seriously doubt it.
I don't know what in the HELL you're talking about in suggesting my logic is "any means necessary..." I never said that. I've always been quite clear against that sort of thing. So, again, that you don't rightly understand my position only means that you don't understand the reality of it all. That's on you, not me.
And what in the hell is my "latest claim..."? You KEEP on making vague references to stories and claims and information that you never cite or make clear.
My literal latest claim was "Some things SHOULD be strongly opposed..." Are you disagreeing with the moral philosophical view?
Again, your comments are welcome regardless of the content. But failing to support the multiple claims you’ve made will make me not feel inclined to engage with you. It seems clear that you just want a space to expound, not a conversation, so that’s fine. Just don’t expect much back.
I do appreciate your attempt to dodge providing evidence for you claims there at the end. It’s cute and amusing.
Wow. Lots of false statements from Dan. I hope this isn't seen as too far astray from the point of the post, but I don't think it is, though it is mostly a response to Dan's comments.
To begin, sort of a foundation for what will follow, I have always had a problem with what some regard as "right-wing". With regard to contemporary conservative philosophy, there are only superficial similarities to conservatism when grouping nationalists (white or otherwise), racists and "nazis" along with them.
Nationalism is no more than love of country with the view of one's nation being superior. How that manifests is the question. Conservatives are patriotic to be sure, with most also believing we are a superior nation in that we offer the best environment for individual liberty, opportunity and the like. While some take it to another lever, similar to racial superiority, that just means they're...racist, viewing other nations the same way racists view other races. There's really no difference but that some are doing it from a slightly different perspective (one's national identity being superior) while the racist deals with skin color. Said another way, those nationalists feel superior simply "because" in the same way racists do. "White nationalists" are a combination of the two.
Yet, both are leftist traits, as the history of this country has shown racism to be. It still is given how the focus on identity politics drives leftist/Democrat/socialist policy. Conservatives...and thus "the right-wing" by what I believe is the more accurate description...works for the benefit of all, regardless of those superficial traits so important to the left.
And of course, nazis have always been leftists, as "socialism" is part of their name.
These and other terms are commonly misapplied and grouped by the left as being among the right wing. As a result, it makes it easier to make the "right-wing" more this or that (in this case "violent") in order to make the left seem more peaceful. I reject the classifications of these groups as "right-wing" for that reason, given it's the fact of the matter.
"Thanks, according to them, to president Trump. Trump is the president who has enabled and empowered and invigorated white nationalist."
Dan continues with this tired and lame nonsense and has done nothing to address objections to it:
First, it doesn't matter what a group of nutjobs say to rationalize or justify their evil. They can attribute whatever they want to whomever they want and it doesn't mean anything with regard to whatever and whomever they're referencing. It's just an excuse to give them license to carry on in their evil. Cheap rationalizations is a hallmark of the left, and we see it in so many of Dan's arguments on any number of issues.
Secondly, with the first point set, we can then see that the rest is a lie. Trump hasn't enabled and empowered and invigorated white nationalists at all except to give them the cheap rationalization. He can't be held responsible for how racists respond to his remarks. I mean, it'd be like holding God responsible for how "progressive Christians" abuse His teachings! Trump doesn't support any of those people and his actions easily prove that, as well as his denunciations.
RE: Dan's post of February 22, 2019 at 6:35 PM...
The SPLC is itself a hate group, choosing to regarding as hateful those who continue to abide, support and promote centuries old notions of morality, virtue and character. Both that link and the other engage in the very same false categorizing of which I spoke in my previous comment. I will say that even some on the right do the same. But again, I reject that grouping because it is false. Once again, these racists, nationalists and nazis aren't "right-wing" simply because they bear some extremely superficial resemblances to conservative philosophy. They bear at LEAST the same level of resemblance to leftism, and I'd say much more so.
But clearly Dan wants and needs to believe that, so to him and too many others, that's enough to make it so. It takes truly childish reasoning to do so
"The implication here is that violence is growing and a serious problem amongst the Left, while the poor little sick white racists are just a tiny outlier, misunderstood and not part of your greater political thinking."
Two problems with this arrogant condescension:
1. It's not implication. It's a statement of fact. 2. Every time I see Dan speak about "the poor little sick white racists", I keep wondering if the poor little black racists are "right-wingers", too. Those like the New Black Panther party, the Black Lives Matter Movement and long time leftist favorites, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam. 3. Every time I see Dan speak about Trump being racist, I keep wondering about the rising percentage of black and Hispanic Trump supporters.
"...reasonable people can see how it's obvious that Trump is encouraging racists and violence..."
Two problems with this:
1. Reasonable people don't see that at all. Unreasonable Trump haters from both side of the divide might, but reasonable people know that a person can't be held responsible for how different people misunderstand or abuse what that person says or does. 2. Dan does does not grasp what constitutes "reasonable".
"I mean, just look at his own God damned words: "Punch him" "I'll pay for your lawyers" He is LITERALLY encouraging violence against the media, liberals, "the elite" and Democrats."
I've looked at at least a half-dozen presentations of these statements of his, including a "fact check" site (I think it was Snopes). Each of those in trying to paint Trump as encouraging people to go out and commit acts of violence does not present the words in the context in which they appeared. When the whole thing is heard, the truth is that Trump is allowing for people to defend themselves against the leftists who harass and assault his supporters. That is, he's telling them not to just take it or allow themselves to be harmed. It is for those people that he would pay their legal bills for their acts of self-defense. Dan abuses these statements as he does with his favorite lie about Trump grabbing women's crotches...because he gets off on the thought of it.
"The progressive movement IS LITERALLY predicated upon tolerance, inclusion and at least leaning towards more pacifism, it's literally in what we stand for."
Well, they like to portray themselves that way, but like islamists, they like to engage in the opposite and then cry about being misunderstood.
"WHO on the mainstream Left is actively encouraging violence in the way that YOUR FUCKING CONSERVATIVE IDIOT PRESIDENT is?"
Aside from Waters, Holder, Clinton and Booker, I can't think of any names off the top of my head at the moment. From outside the political, I can offer many more names of lefties. The problem is, they don't do it the way America's president does, because he doesn't do it. You're just a Trump-hating, grace-embracing liar.
"Thus, recommending you pull your head out of your fucking ass is EXACTLY addressing the idiotic, non-factual post. "
The constant use of profanity is a form of violent behavior. More later...
Art, I understand that the nature of conversation is that it isn’t limited to one specific topic and that limiting conversation artificially is simply a means of arbitrarily imposing control on others. It’s antithetical to actual conversation. Usually when I bring it up it’s a means to point out the hypocrisy of others, not to stifle conversation.
The fact that the NAZI’s are more accurately placed on the left of the political spectrum is well known, but it’s a convient trope.
Yes, I believe Trump is unfit for office. I believe he is unfit for office due to the multiple character failings I’ve detailed previously. Primarily his dishonesty, and his infidelity.
Had you read my previous comments here and elsewhere, you’d know this.
Unfortunately you’re just looking for excuses to shut down people who don’t agree with you to the degree you’d like.
I realize that silencing dissent is the new pastime of the left, so you’re in good company.
It’s clear that you have no interest in a conversation as the term is normally used.
You either want a sycophant to parrot your vitriol and kiss your ass.
Or you want someone who will answer your question as nauseum, jump through whatever arbitrary hoops you whimsically come up with, and who you can threaten and dominate.
I’m not going to say I’m done, but I’m going to assume that you’ll delete and lie about any further comments I make and will act accordingly.
Again, I think Trump is unfit for office because of his infidelities (If he doesn’t hold his marriage vows in high esteem, why would he hold his oath of office in high esteem). I also think that Trump’s attitude towards the truth is a problem. He says whatever he thinks will help him in the moment, without regard to the truth if his comments. Further, his inability to control himself on social media etc, is a problem.
No, as I’ve said, since everyone in history had lied it would be unreasonable to hold that standard.
Yes, I believe that infidelity is a disqualification for the presidency. Society doesn’t agree with me, but I place a high value on fidelity and integrity, an affair demonstrates a failure of both.
I realize the rational position that there will never be a perfect candidate for political office and that the best I can do is to identify the candidate who is the best compromise with my ideal candidate. In other words, I acknowledge reality and am honest in assessing the candidates I vote for.
I I don’t have a problem at all, my standards of who I support are personal, I’m not trying to impose them on others.
Yes. Yes.
Except I don’t mock you for not having a line, I merely point out that you have no measurable standard (which you’ve been bitching about when it comes to me), and that you don’t apply the same standards to yourself that you do to others.
No, because I’ve clearly not defended Trump. Just because you’re prejudiced doesn’t mean your prejudice is reality.
If you can’t provide a quote where I’m specifically “normalizing” his deviancy, you should consider not making that claim. So, no I don’t recognize your prejudice as reality.
33 comments:
The point of this post is not to deny the fact that there are people on the right who go to extremes. It's to point out the fallacy that progressives are the "tolerant, inclusive, pacifist" group of folx that some people try to claim. The fact that the evidence of this keeps growing just makes the folx who cling to the myth look more and more pathetic.
It really is ludicrous to pretend that these are outliers, when by comparison there are few parallel cases from the right-wing. This recent story about the Coast Guard dude will be spun as if it is common. It is far less so than violent behavior, or even calls for anything remotely resembling it, by the left.
That’s exactly it. The USCG guy is clearly not representing anything close to a mainstream view, while the number of incidences of progressives advocating and engaging in violence is growing.
But the point still is that anyone who tries to peddle the progressive movement is a predicated on tolerance, inclusion, and pacifism is either lying or stupid.
You guys are so full of s***. Look at the data. There is a real threat from white nationalist and other conservative extremist. There is no serious threat as far as the numbers are concerned from Forecastle to self-identify as Progressive. I mean, those extremists exist, but not in the numbers of Suffolk identified conservative extremists who are thriving right now. Thanks, according to them, to president Trump. Trump is the president who has enabled and empowered and invigorated white nationalist. Y'all have to live with that. Get your head out of your asses
Don't be idiots. Look at the data.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf
Just because you WANT TO believe something doesn't make it true.
If you're going to post ideas, do it like thinking adults, not scared little rightwing children, too dumb or too scared (or both) to think and reason at an adult level.
Dan, you might want to note that neither of your expletive laced, insult filled comments actually address the point of the post. You might also want to note that even though your comments were off topic and uncivil they both got published.
If only the SPLC wasn’t quite so biased.
I’m going to point out the reality that someone else didn’t actually read this post before they commented on it at another blog.
Which kinda makes them guilty of what they accused me of.
Let’s not ignore the recent study that seems to indicate that those on the left are more accepting of political violence than those on the right.
After all once you go through the process to decide that it’s ok to “punch a NAZI” and that your political agenda should be advanced by “any means necessary”, you’ve pretty much taken non violence off the table.
re: being off topic... What YOU (and Marshall) literally said...
The USCG guy is clearly not representing anything close to a mainstream view, while the number of incidences of progressives advocating and engaging in violence is growing.
The implication here is that violence is growing and a serious problem amongst the Left, while the poor little sick white racists are just a tiny outlier, misunderstood and not part of your greater political thinking.
The data shows that there IS a problem with white supremacists and violence. I'm NOT saying that violence is part of mainstream conservatism, but white supremacists and other violent conservatives ARE a rising threat, they DO report being empowered by Trump and, I believe, reasonable people can see how it's obvious that Trump is encouraging racists and violence.
I mean, just look at his own God damned words: "Punch him" "I'll pay for your lawyers" He is LITERALLY encouraging violence against the media, liberals, "the elite" and Democrats. In his OWN WORDS. And he IS YOUR SIDE's monster, not ours.
But the point still is that anyone who tries to peddle the progressive movement is a predicated on tolerance, inclusion, and pacifism is either lying or stupid.
The progressive movement IS LITERALLY predicated upon tolerance, inclusion and at least leaning towards more pacifism, it's literally in what we stand for. There ARE violent outliers on both sides, but the DATA shows that your stupid suggestion that violence is something like accepted or mainstream in liberal thought is just a dumb-ass false claim, of the sort that your stupid ass conservative president who is literally encouraging violence and spreading demonizations that lead to violence (like the Coast Guard racist conservative).
WHO on the mainstream Left is actively encouraging violence in the way that YOUR FUCKING CONSERVATIVE IDIOT PRESIDENT is?
There's literally no one. Those who claim to be liberal who are encouraging violence are literally outliers. YOUR "outlier" is in the fucking Oval Office, elected by the vast majority of white conservative evangelicals, NOT by progressives.
Thus, recommending you pull your head out of your fucking ass is EXACTLY addressing the idiotic, non-factual post. Perhaps your head is just too far embedded to see it.
As to SOME on the Left (who are NOT embracing liberal values when they do this) ARE beginning to say things like "Punch a Nazi..." are you even THINKING about what you're writing?
When YOUR SIDE has an increasing number of actual racists and literal fucking Nazis, to see some people respond to such oppressors WITH violence is not entirely unreasonable. I mean, DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT A RACIST IS? A WHITE SUPREMACIST? A NAZI?
Good God! When did conservatives become accepting of literal monsters and denouncing strong reactions to literally Evil behavior and attitudes?
Now, I fully recognize that even Hitler and other actual nazis ARE still human and not actually monsters, but some ideologies that we thought were largely on the ash bin of history because they were SO vile, SO repugnant, SO literally EVIL that no one mainstream would ever legitimize them... So, unless you're a total moral deviant, I would ask you to recognize the difference between strong, even violent opposition to literal evil and just violent responses IN SUPPORT of evil.
Put another way: The racists, white supremacists and Nazis are an evil oppressive force that are violent in nature. THAT must be opposed (and Good God, WHEN will your side start standing strong against them?! SHit!). Violent responses to violent oppressors, I believe, are still wrong and not the way to go.
But it's an apples and dynamite comparison.
In short, do you recognize the difference between "punching a Nazi" and violence towards folks because of their color, orientation, religion or national status?
Look at it this way: When the nuns in the Sound of Music stole and vandalized the car parts from the Nazis (or the real life equivalent of that happening), that is funny and righteous. It is right, good and moral to stand against actual oppressors. Of course! (Why do I have to even state that?). Many, back in the day, even thought it was good and moral to kill nazis, probably you would have supported that, yes?
But to do the same thing to a black family or gay people or the press... that is NOT funny, NOT righteous. It would just be evil.
Apples and a Pile of Dung. Two different things. Don't conflate them or compare them.
No time to read your pile of dung. But the topic of the POST, is the point. The fact that I allow off topic comments doesn’t make yours on topic.
Read carefully and pay attention.
Despite what the liberal movement might have been predicated on or what it might have once leaned towards, all anyone needs to do is look at the news to see that things have drastically changed in the real world.
No one is denying the existence of violent outliers on the political right, hell it’s a key part of the narrative. But, this post isn’t about that. If you feel the need to use this as justification for the increase in left-wing violence, feel free. But the reality is the this post isn’t about what Trump said or anything else. Nor it is about you assuming that I somehow support political violence. It’s about the fiction that the left is tolerant, inclusive, and nonviolent based on the reality of the current news.
Despite what the liberal movement might have been predicated on or what it might have once leaned towards, all anyone needs to do is look at the news to see that things have drastically changed in the real world.
And that is the delusional lie that you tell yourself to make yourself stay allied with the Party of Perverts and Moral deviants and liars, but it's just not reality.
Your hypocrisy lies in that you will "graciously allow" that the hordes of conservative white racists, white supremacists and Nazis are "outliers" but in considering the trickle of violent liberal outliers to BE actual outliers.
And again, it may not by overt hypocrisy so much as deliberate ignorance, in ignoring the numbers of the rise of conservative extremist groups as documented by law enforcement and other experts and researchers.
No, you're NOT denying the existence of violent conservative outliers... but you make false claims by comparing their numbers to the much smaller incidences of violent liberal outliers.
Can you admit to the reality that you have ZERO DATA - not a God damned bit of research or data - to support your comparison of liberals to violent right wing extremists?
It is NOT a fiction that liberals are tolerant inclusive or nonviolent. I AM PART of these people and I see it every day. It's not a lie, it's the reality on the ground. What IS a HELLISH lie is your suggestion that the outliers somehow define the mainstream of liberal reality. That, and your refusal to recognize that EVEN WITH the liberal outliers who say "punch a Nazi" that they are somehow comparable to the oppression of/attacks upon black, gay, women, liberal or media folk.
Face reality, man. YOUR SIDE has a fucking racist, pervert, liar YOU ALL collectively put into office. The conservative wing is NOW defiantly the wing of perverts, liars, hedonists and racists. The party that makes nazis and white supremacists feel empowered.
Remove the gargantuan sequoia from your eyes, take a stand against the perverts and deviants, liars and racists that infect white evangelical conservative circles... THEN we can talk about the speck in the liberal's eyes.
RE: your second comment, thank you for agreeing that there are folx on the left who are increasingly turning toward violence and increasingly becoming less tolerant, more violent, and less inclusive.
As to your claim that there are actual “literal” NAZI’s in positions of elected or appointed positions of power, you’ll need to provide some actual evidence of this claim before I waste any more time with it. Ditto your racist claim.
Put up or shut up.
RE: your third comment. You are simply making excuses for the increase of violence on the left while hiding behind the fiction that the left is all about tolerance, acceptance, and nonviolence.
When the actual NAZI’s marched in Skokie the whole point of that was to suggest that free speech protects offensive speech. You’re now appearing to suggest (as we’re seeing frequently on the left) that speech you find offensive should be silenced, but also beaten into submission.
It’s understandable that you want to put your personal anecdotal experience over what we see on a weekly basis in the media.
As to the rest, if you want me to argue against your assumptions about me, don’t hold your breath.
If you’d going to make claims, please support them.
FYI, there’s a recent study out there that seemingly disputes your anecdotal experience. I’ll post a link at some point. But it’ll be easier if you just dismiss it before you even see it.
I have to note some housekeeping items at this point.
1. All of Dan’s comments (no matter how vulgar, nasty, graceless, or filled with expletives) have been posted in their entirety.
2. I have chosen not to respond in a similar tone.
3. I have not threatened or even hinted at deleting any comments.
4. I have asked for proof of claims, readonably politely and respectfully.
5. Note the difference in tone and attitude and f Dan’s comments.
Yeah, my comments are stronger, to be sure.
But then, I'm not the one defending racists, perverts, sexual deviants, liars and nazis.
Some things SHOULD be strongly opposed. I'm sorry you don't get that.
FYI, I do recognize the difference between “punching a NAZI” and lynching black people.
That’s not the point. The point is that you’ve gone from advocating a pure pacifism ( and suggesting that the progressive movement is founded in nonviolence), to advocating or excusing violence when you think it’s necessary.
A while back you used the dripping of the A Bomb to try to make a point.
Well, according to your current “logic”, Trumsn was justified in using “any means necessary” to eradicate a regime of incredible evil.
You’re so bent on justifying the actions of your side, that you don’t notice that your contradicting your own beliefs.
Most conservatives (and rational liberals) agree that force (violence, whatever) is sometimes appropriate and that the strict pacifism you used to advocate is unrealistic.
Instead of justifying “punching NAZI’s”, why not explain how to deal with them nonviolently?
Please, provide proof of your latest claim.
Quotes and links would be appreciated. Or, in the absence of proof, an apology would suffice.
Yes, you are definitely “stronger” in your flinging on verbal excrement, gracelessness, and vitriol. Not exactly why followers of Jesus should be known for, but if that’s what you’re proud of...
Dan I’ll continue to post your comments, if for no other reason than to point out the differences. But, if you’re not going to do what I’ve asked, don’t expect much in the way of responses.
The point is that you’ve gone from advocating a pure pacifism ( and suggesting that the progressive movement is founded in nonviolence), to advocating or excusing violence when you think it’s necessary.
But I have not done so. That you don't understand my position is not evidence that you're stating it correctly now.
Liberals have never been purely pacifists. I have said that they have tended to lean pacifistic, being in support of the Kings, the Gandhis and Jesus and their messages of nonviolence. And, of the two parties, NVDA is more closely associated with liberal groups than with conservative groups, historically speaking (for at least my lifetime).
But liberals are simply not purely pacifist. Never have been. Me? I certainly lean pacifist/towards the ideas and ideals of Just Peacemaking.
And noting that some people WILL respond to oppressors like nazis and racists with violence is not a defense of it.
Also, noting that it's punching a Nazi (because you are opposed to the oppression of Naziism) is not the same as lynching a black man is not a defense of the punching. It's noting that there is a difference between the two groups.
When conservative forces in the US supported the terrorist contras in Nicaragua and some of the Sandinistas responded to the oppression of the Contras with violence themselves, I noted that I would not condemn those fighting against terrorism with violence themselves... I think there's a better way in the ideals of Just Peacemaking, but I'm not in a position to condemn those who are being oppressed and killed by terrorists in responding violently. I GET that self defense is normal and to be expected.
But there is a difference between self defense of the Sandinistan villagers and the oppression of the contra terrorists.
Noting the differences is not the same as supporting violence.
Maybe you can understand that now that I've clarified, but I seriously doubt it.
I don't know what in the HELL you're talking about in suggesting my logic is "any means necessary..." I never said that. I've always been quite clear against that sort of thing. So, again, that you don't rightly understand my position only means that you don't understand the reality of it all. That's on you, not me.
And what in the hell is my "latest claim..."? You KEEP on making vague references to stories and claims and information that you never cite or make clear.
My literal latest claim was "Some things SHOULD be strongly opposed..." Are you disagreeing with the moral philosophical view?
Again, your comments are welcome regardless of the content. But failing to support the multiple claims you’ve made will make me not feel inclined to engage with you. It seems clear that you just want a space to expound, not a conversation, so that’s fine. Just don’t expect much back.
I do appreciate your attempt to dodge providing evidence for you claims there at the end. It’s cute and amusing.
Wow. Lots of false statements from Dan. I hope this isn't seen as too far astray from the point of the post, but I don't think it is, though it is mostly a response to Dan's comments.
To begin, sort of a foundation for what will follow, I have always had a problem with what some regard as "right-wing". With regard to contemporary conservative philosophy, there are only superficial similarities to conservatism when grouping nationalists (white or otherwise), racists and "nazis" along with them.
Nationalism is no more than love of country with the view of one's nation being superior. How that manifests is the question. Conservatives are patriotic to be sure, with most also believing we are a superior nation in that we offer the best environment for individual liberty, opportunity and the like. While some take it to another lever, similar to racial superiority, that just means they're...racist, viewing other nations the same way racists view other races. There's really no difference but that some are doing it from a slightly different perspective (one's national identity being superior) while the racist deals with skin color. Said another way, those nationalists feel superior simply "because" in the same way racists do. "White nationalists" are a combination of the two.
Yet, both are leftist traits, as the history of this country has shown racism to be. It still is given how the focus on identity politics drives leftist/Democrat/socialist policy. Conservatives...and thus "the right-wing" by what I believe is the more accurate description...works for the benefit of all, regardless of those superficial traits so important to the left.
And of course, nazis have always been leftists, as "socialism" is part of their name.
These and other terms are commonly misapplied and grouped by the left as being among the right wing. As a result, it makes it easier to make the "right-wing" more this or that (in this case "violent") in order to make the left seem more peaceful. I reject the classifications of these groups as "right-wing" for that reason, given it's the fact of the matter.
Moving on to specifics of Dan's comments...
RE: Dan's post of February 22, 2019 at 5:10 PM...
"Thanks, according to them, to president Trump. Trump is the president who has enabled and empowered and invigorated white nationalist."
Dan continues with this tired and lame nonsense and has done nothing to address objections to it:
First, it doesn't matter what a group of nutjobs say to rationalize or justify their evil. They can attribute whatever they want to whomever they want and it doesn't mean anything with regard to whatever and whomever they're referencing. It's just an excuse to give them license to carry on in their evil. Cheap rationalizations is a hallmark of the left, and we see it in so many of Dan's arguments on any number of issues.
Secondly, with the first point set, we can then see that the rest is a lie. Trump hasn't enabled and empowered and invigorated white nationalists at all except to give them the cheap rationalization. He can't be held responsible for how racists respond to his remarks. I mean, it'd be like holding God responsible for how "progressive Christians" abuse His teachings! Trump doesn't support any of those people and his actions easily prove that, as well as his denunciations.
RE: Dan's post of February 22, 2019 at 6:35 PM...
The SPLC is itself a hate group, choosing to regarding as hateful those who continue to abide, support and promote centuries old notions of morality, virtue and character. Both that link and the other engage in the very same false categorizing of which I spoke in my previous comment. I will say that even some on the right do the same. But again, I reject that grouping because it is false. Once again, these racists, nationalists and nazis aren't "right-wing" simply because they bear some extremely superficial resemblances to conservative philosophy. They bear at LEAST the same level of resemblance to leftism, and I'd say much more so.
But clearly Dan wants and needs to believe that, so to him and too many others, that's enough to make it so. It takes truly childish reasoning to do so
RE: Dan's comment of February 23, 2019 at 7:31 AM
"The implication here is that violence is growing and a serious problem amongst the Left, while the poor little sick white racists are just a tiny outlier, misunderstood and not part of your greater political thinking."
Two problems with this arrogant condescension:
1. It's not implication. It's a statement of fact.
2. Every time I see Dan speak about "the poor little sick white racists", I keep wondering if the poor little black racists are "right-wingers", too. Those like the New Black Panther party, the Black Lives Matter Movement and long time leftist favorites, Louis Farrakan and the Nation of Islam.
3. Every time I see Dan speak about Trump being racist, I keep wondering about the rising percentage of black and Hispanic Trump supporters.
"...reasonable people can see how it's obvious that Trump is encouraging racists and violence..."
Two problems with this:
1. Reasonable people don't see that at all. Unreasonable Trump haters from both side of the divide might, but reasonable people know that a person can't be held responsible for how different people misunderstand or abuse what that person says or does.
2. Dan does does not grasp what constitutes "reasonable".
"I mean, just look at his own God damned words: "Punch him" "I'll pay for your lawyers" He is LITERALLY encouraging violence against the media, liberals, "the elite" and Democrats."
I've looked at at least a half-dozen presentations of these statements of his, including a "fact check" site (I think it was Snopes). Each of those in trying to paint Trump as encouraging people to go out and commit acts of violence does not present the words in the context in which they appeared. When the whole thing is heard, the truth is that Trump is allowing for people to defend themselves against the leftists who harass and assault his supporters. That is, he's telling them not to just take it or allow themselves to be harmed. It is for those people that he would pay their legal bills for their acts of self-defense. Dan abuses these statements as he does with his favorite lie about Trump grabbing women's crotches...because he gets off on the thought of it.
"The progressive movement IS LITERALLY predicated upon tolerance, inclusion and at least leaning towards more pacifism, it's literally in what we stand for."
Well, they like to portray themselves that way, but like islamists, they like to engage in the opposite and then cry about being misunderstood.
"WHO on the mainstream Left is actively encouraging violence in the way that YOUR FUCKING CONSERVATIVE IDIOT PRESIDENT is?"
Aside from Waters, Holder, Clinton and Booker, I can't think of any names off the top of my head at the moment. From outside the political, I can offer many more names of lefties. The problem is, they don't do it the way America's president does, because he doesn't do it. You're just a Trump-hating, grace-embracing liar.
"Thus, recommending you pull your head out of your fucking ass is EXACTLY addressing the idiotic, non-factual post. "
The constant use of profanity is a form of violent behavior. More later...
Art, I understand that the nature of conversation is that it isn’t limited to one specific topic and that limiting conversation artificially is simply a means of arbitrarily imposing control on others. It’s antithetical to actual conversation. Usually when I bring it up it’s a means to point out the hypocrisy of others, not to stifle conversation.
The fact that the NAZI’s are more accurately placed on the left of the political spectrum is well known, but it’s a convient trope.
The liberal in question has finally been arrested, wonder if he’ll get hit with a hate crime?
Dan,
Yes, I believe Trump is unfit for office. I believe he is unfit for office due to the multiple character failings I’ve detailed previously. Primarily his dishonesty, and his infidelity.
Had you read my previous comments here and elsewhere, you’d know this.
Unfortunately you’re just looking for excuses to shut down people who don’t agree with you to the degree you’d like.
I realize that silencing dissent is the new pastime of the left, so you’re in good company.
It’s clear that you have no interest in a conversation as the term is normally used.
You either want a sycophant to parrot your vitriol and kiss your ass.
Or you want someone who will answer your question as nauseum, jump through whatever arbitrary hoops you whimsically come up with, and who you can threaten and dominate.
I’m not going to say I’m done, but I’m going to assume that you’ll delete and lie about any further comments I make and will act accordingly.
Again, I think Trump is unfit for office because of his infidelities (If he doesn’t hold his marriage vows in high esteem, why would he hold his oath of office in high esteem). I also think that Trump’s attitude towards the truth is a problem. He says whatever he thinks will help him in the moment, without regard to the truth if his comments. Further, his inability to control himself on social media etc, is a problem.
No, as I’ve said, since everyone in history had lied it would be unreasonable to hold that standard.
Yes, I believe that infidelity is a disqualification for the presidency. Society doesn’t agree with me, but I place a high value on fidelity and integrity, an affair demonstrates a failure of both.
I realize the rational position that there will never be a perfect candidate for political office and that the best I can do is to identify the candidate who is the best compromise with my ideal candidate. In other words, I acknowledge reality and am honest in assessing the candidates I vote for.
I I don’t have a problem at all, my standards of who I support are personal, I’m not trying to impose them on others.
Yes. Yes.
Except I don’t mock you for not having a line, I merely point out that you have no measurable standard (which you’ve been bitching about when it comes to me), and that you don’t apply the same standards to yourself that you do to others.
No, because I’ve clearly not defended Trump. Just because you’re prejudiced doesn’t mean your prejudice is reality.
If you can’t provide a quote where I’m specifically “normalizing” his deviancy, you should consider not making that claim. So, no I don’t recognize your prejudice as reality.
Post a Comment