Purity tests - how the left is killing itself
PVW said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
If in an election where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two major party candidates, a person who sits out (or votes for a third party candidate) is most likely not part of the "Democratic base".
You know what's funny about this? You've been ranting about such people as though they exist on this board for three years without any evidence that they exist. As far as I know, they don't exist.
I don't get the joke.
IIRC, Paul voted for Clinton. Therefore, he's not among those who sat it out or voted for a third party candidate.
Then I really don't get the joke.
And I'm not fishing for a "Of course you don't" comment from Mr. "You-can't-say-I-didn't-vote-for-her".
[Edited to add] But I should add that not everything is about Paul, so it's interesting that he responded as if it was.
I don’t know why Paul is so bent out of shape over this. I’m a reliable Democratic voter, but I wouldn’t even consider myself a member of a voter base that the Democrats should be reaching out to specifically. suburban white guys my age who hold my political ideology aren’t exactly a fruitful source for votes. Tailoring a campaign to me doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
paulsurovell said:
You know what's funny about this? You've been ranting about such people as though they exist on this board for three years without any evidence that they exist. As far as I know, they don't exist.
Author did not vote for either. he has told us that numerous times.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
If in an election where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two major party candidates, a person who sits out (or votes for a third party candidate) is most likely not part of the "Democratic base".
You know what's funny about this? You've been ranting about such people as though they exist on this board for three years without any evidence that they exist. As far as I know, they don't exist.
I don't get the joke.
It's not funny if you have to explain it.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
Do you also consider Liberal Democrats who sometimes support Republicans (like yourself) to not be part of the "Democratic base"?
I thought that the Democratic Party regards itself as inclusive, a Big Tent -- and that should include a range of ideological positions and independent thinking, among the many categories of diversity, in its base.
Edited to Add: @sbenois may consider himself to be a Democrat, but he's not a democrat, as I've demonstrated numerous times.
I voted for liberal and moderate Republicans 40 years ago, so that’s not relevant now.
If Tom Kean ran against Joey D, who would you vote for?
To me the base is a coalition of groups that make up a significant portion of the electorate. There aren’t even a lot of people out there like me, and I think you’d agree you're pretty far left of me. I doubt anyone appealing directly to people like you and nan are going to appeal to the wider electorate.
Antiwar and environmental activists are part of that coalition. But like Tulsi we consider the Party leadership to be in bed with the Military-Industrial Complex and like Bernie we consider the Party leadership to be in bed with the Corporate America. So, for example, we fought (unsuccessfully) to include the phrase "Israeli occupation" and a ban on fracking in the 2016 platform.
Do you consider your ideas mainstream In the Democratic Party
My ideas are largely a combination of Bernie's and Tulsi's, so if they reflect the mainstream, my answer would be yes.
STANV said:
paulsurovell said:
You know what's funny about this? You've been ranting about such people as though they exist on this board for three years without any evidence that they exist. As far as I know, they don't exist.
Author did not vote for either. he has told us that numerous times.
Oh, my bad. You mean @nohero has been ranting about @author all this time? Could've fooled me.
This is worth repeating.
PVW said:
You've set the "ever changing rules" in opposition to letting "everyone live their own lives."
My point is that these rules change precisely to try and let "everyone lead their own lives," and I think LGBTQ issues are a good illustration of this.
By complaining about changing rules around language -- I'm sorry, not complaining, by talking about changes in language in a negative tone and implying you disagree with this -- you're suggesting that progressives and liberals should not do this, and instead just let people "live their own lives." But what if you are gay or transgender? These changing rules around language are an attempt to legitimize and make socially acceptable identities that were previously marginalized and actively silenced. If progressives and liberals were to refrain from advocating for these "changing rules," they would indeed be letting those who discriminate against LGBTQ identities live their own lives, but at the cost of preventing LGBTQ people from living their own lives.
So your position is not a neutral "let everyone live their own lives," but rather choosing a side -- it says that those who discriminate against LGBTQ should be left in peace, but LGBTQ people and their allies should be silent.
paulsurovell said:
If Tom Kean ran against Joey D, who would you vote for?
Kean Sr. or Jr.?
For what office?
STANV said:
This is worth repeating.
PVW said:
You've set the "ever changing rules" in opposition to letting "everyone live their own lives."
My point is that these rules change precisely to try and let "everyone lead their own lives," and I think LGBTQ issues are a good illustration of this.
By complaining about changing rules around language -- I'm sorry, not complaining, by talking about changes in language in a negative tone and implying you disagree with this -- you're suggesting that progressives and liberals should not do this, and instead just let people "live their own lives." But what if you are gay or transgender? These changing rules around language are an attempt to legitimize and make socially acceptable identities that were previously marginalized and actively silenced. If progressives and liberals were to refrain from advocating for these "changing rules," they would indeed be letting those who discriminate against LGBTQ identities live their own lives, but at the cost of preventing LGBTQ people from living their own lives.
So your position is not a neutral "let everyone live their own lives," but rather choosing a side -- it says that those who discriminate against LGBTQ should be left in peace, but LGBTQ people and their allies should be silent.
Should language changes come from government (or government regulators) or evolve organically?
Should all English speaking countries be required to embrace the same changes?
STANV said:
Kean Sr. or Jr.?
For what office?
Sr could not win a GOP primary today. So the question is moot.
RealityForAll said:
STANV said:
This is worth repeating.
PVW said:
You've set the "ever changing rules" in opposition to letting "everyone live their own lives."
My point is that these rules change precisely to try and let "everyone lead their own lives," and I think LGBTQ issues are a good illustration of this.
By complaining about changing rules around language -- I'm sorry, not complaining, by talking about changes in language in a negative tone and implying you disagree with this -- you're suggesting that progressives and liberals should not do this, and instead just let people "live their own lives." But what if you are gay or transgender? These changing rules around language are an attempt to legitimize and make socially acceptable identities that were previously marginalized and actively silenced. If progressives and liberals were to refrain from advocating for these "changing rules," they would indeed be letting those who discriminate against LGBTQ identities live their own lives, but at the cost of preventing LGBTQ people from living their own lives.
So your position is not a neutral "let everyone live their own lives," but rather choosing a side -- it says that those who discriminate against LGBTQ should be left in peace, but LGBTQ people and their allies should be silent.
Should language changes come from government (or government regulators) or evolve organically?
Should all English speaking countries be required to embrace the same changes?
Terp observed that "Now, you are a neanderthal if you are against gay marriage. You're not even allowed to bring it up in polite company. Hell, if you are against Men who identify as women using the women's room you will get the hairy eyeball."'
Unless one spends a lot of time attending dinner parties at government offices, "polite company" here refers to regular old organic conversations, not government regulators.
STANV said:
paulsurovell said:
If Tom Kean ran against Joey D, who would you vote for?
Kean Sr. or Jr.?
For what office?
Senior for County Executive.
PVW said:
terp said:
Where was I complaining? I was simply challenging an assertion made by someone else. I think I missed your question, because it was a pretty big leap from what I was saying. I never said anyone was wrong about anything. I'd like to know where your jumping off point was because it sure wasn't my post.Let me try once more, then. You say this:
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.You've set the "ever changing rules" in opposition to letting "everyone live their own lives."
My point is that these rules change precisely to try and let "everyone lead their own lives," and I think LGBTQ issues are a good illustration of this.
By complaining about changing rules around language -- I'm sorry, not complaining, by talking about changes in language in a negative tone and implying you disagree with this -- you're suggesting that progressives and liberals should not do this, and instead just let people "live their own lives." But what if you are gay or transgender? These changing rules around language are an attempt to legitimize and make socially acceptable identities that were previously marginalized and actively silenced. If progressives and liberals were to refrain from advocating for these "changing rules," they would indeed be letting those who discriminate against LGBTQ identities live their own lives, but at the cost of preventing LGBTQ people from living their own lives.
So your position is not a neutral "let everyone live their own lives," but rather choosing a side -- it says that those who discriminate against LGBTQ should be left in peace, but LGBTQ people and their allies should be silent.
This is so typical. If you are not on board with the new rules, you don't care about people. Who said anything about discriminating against anyone? Who is saying we shouldn't let anyone live their own lives?
The above is a stupid post and is really insulting. You assigned a bunch of positions to me because I'm not on board with your control of language and your attempts to excommunicate anyone who isn't instantly on board.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
Where was I complaining? I was simply challenging an assertion made by someone else. I think I missed your question, because it was a pretty big leap from what I was saying. I never said anyone was wrong about anything. I'd like to know where your jumping off point was because it sure wasn't my post.Let me try once more, then. You say this:
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.You've set the "ever changing rules" in opposition to letting "everyone live their own lives."
My point is that these rules change precisely to try and let "everyone lead their own lives," and I think LGBTQ issues are a good illustration of this.
By complaining about changing rules around language -- I'm sorry, not complaining, by talking about changes in language in a negative tone and implying you disagree with this -- you're suggesting that progressives and liberals should not do this, and instead just let people "live their own lives." But what if you are gay or transgender? These changing rules around language are an attempt to legitimize and make socially acceptable identities that were previously marginalized and actively silenced. If progressives and liberals were to refrain from advocating for these "changing rules," they would indeed be letting those who discriminate against LGBTQ identities live their own lives, but at the cost of preventing LGBTQ people from living their own lives.
So your position is not a neutral "let everyone live their own lives," but rather choosing a side -- it says that those who discriminate against LGBTQ should be left in peace, but LGBTQ people and their allies should be silent.
This is so typical. If you are not on board with the new rules, you don't care about people. Who said anything about discriminating against anyone? Who is saying we shouldn't let anyone live their own lives?
The above is a stupid post and is really insulting. You assigned a bunch of positions to me because I'm not on board with your control of language and your attempts to excommunicate anyone who isn't instantly on board.
Oh c'mon. Before, you were complaining about people getting criticized for opposing gay marriage. Well, some of those people who oppose gay marriage will also discriminate against gay people/couples. If they simply opposed it but let them live their lives, there really wouldn't be much of an issue.
But that's not what happens, because some people suck and need to abuse whatever power they may have - and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Right?
The language one uses and the behavior one exhibits are related. You can't fix one without the other. (Yeah, fix.)
terp said:
That's the trap. Use my language du jour or you are a heretic.
If language has no power, then arguing about how we use it is indeed a silly exercise in dogmatism. But then by the same token, it's silly to get worked up about it. On the other hand, if it's worth getting worked up over language, then it must have some power, and so it actually does make a difference what language we use.
So which one is it, terp? Does it matter how we refer to LGBTQ people? If yes, then making sure the language du jour is more inclusive than the language of yesterday matters. If not, and language has nothing to do with discrimination, then why are you so bent out of shape over "control of language?"
Because it's getting so that people who don't necessarily have bad intentions are being banned, fired, etc. Sometimes the violations occurred years prior. If you work for a major corporation and have ever taken sensitivity training its absolutely silly.
And much of this is virtue signalling. You've got to use the current lingo or you are on the outs. I mean, wasn't it LGTB a week or 2 ago?
Yes, it's inconvenient for some to get rid of their bigoted language. Tough noogies.
terp said:
Because it's getting so that people who don't necessarily have bad intentions are being banned, fired, etc. Sometimes the violations occurred years prior. If you work for a major corporation and have ever taken sensitivity training its absolutely silly.
And much of this is virtue signalling. You've got to use the current lingo or you are on the outs. I mean, wasn't it LGTB a week or 2 ago?
Again, does language have power, or not? If it does, and it previously was a tool for discrimination, then part of ending discrimination must include changing language. Change is awkward, annoying, frustrating, and often has a lot of dead ends. It does feel silly on some level to see us as a society iterate through different language to refer to, for instance, people who identify as gay or transgender, but if we take the experience of gay and transgender people seriously, then working through the silliness and awkwardness of language is something worth doing.
On the other hand, if language is so powerless that it was never a tool of discrimination, then all the silliness and awkwardness of changing language is pretty pointless. But, again, if language matters so little, then why bother getting so worked up about it?
So once more - does language have power, or not?
I like Doug Stanhope's take on this phenomenon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmRoc0VQ8y8&list=RDnmRoc0VQ8y8&start_radio=1&t=7
The wider context of this is how arbitrary it is. It's totally fine to call someone a lunatic or crazy. He says this as his long time girlfriend suffers from schizophrenia and he discusses her treatment.
PVW said:
terp said:
Because it's getting so that people who don't necessarily have bad intentions are being banned, fired, etc. Sometimes the violations occurred years prior. If you work for a major corporation and have ever taken sensitivity training its absolutely silly.
And much of this is virtue signalling. You've got to use the current lingo or you are on the outs. I mean, wasn't it LGTB a week or 2 ago?
Again, does language have power, or not? If it does, and it previously was a tool for discrimination, then part of ending discrimination must include changing language. Change is awkward, annoying, frustrating, and often has a lot of dead ends. It does feel silly on some level to see us as a society iterate through different language to refer to, for instance, people who identify as gay or transgender, but if we take the experience of gay and transgender people seriously, then working through the silliness and awkwardness of language is something worth doing.
On the other hand, if language is so powerless that it was never a tool of discrimination, then all the silliness and awkwardness of changing language is pretty pointless. But, again, if language matters so little, then why bother getting so worked up about it?
So once more - does language have power, or not?
Of course it has power. And both sides of the political spectrum use it as a cudgel. The right will tend to use these tactics if you criticize the military. The left will use these same tactics if you question their takes on victimization.
And it's silly. It's silly for someone to lose their job for bad jokes in their past that didn't work out or tweets they made years ago that were clearly jokes, or what have you. The worst thing is that we can't treat each other as human beings and immediately assume the worst in everyone else...they're heretics after all.
And if you question the common narrative both sides will label you a conspiracy theorist or batshit crazy or what have you.
paulsurovell said:
It's a hypothetical. Who would you vote for?
if it's a hypothetical, I'm voting for the unicorn.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
It's a hypothetical. Who would you vote for?
if it's a hypothetical, I'm voting for the unicorn.
Coward.
drummerboy said:
The language one uses and the behavior one exhibits are related. You can't fix one without the other. (Yeah, fix.)
I guess this means you must be a total a-hole in real life.
paulsurovell said:
I guess this means you must be a total a-hole in real life.
lol. And what vocabulary do you use when referring to, for example, ethnic groups or gay people or the disabled ? Do use words that were commonly used 50 or 100 years ago but are considered offensive now?
What a stupid, stupid comment.
Wow.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
IIRC, Paul voted for Clinton. Therefore, he's not among those who sat it out or voted for a third party candidate.