Purity tests - how the left is killing itself
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
A gratuitous, ignorant smear. You have no idea what you're talking about.
how is that a "smear?" Just tell me how I'm wrong instead of complaining. I'm totally ok with you proving my conclusion wrong.
(a) Define the "Democratic base" that you allege Nan and I are not a part of.
(b) Explain how you know who Nan and I have voted for.
(c) Are @sbenois and @Klinker part of the "Democratic base"? Both have said they won't vote if certain candidates are the nominee. Why didn't you include them in your comment?
When you're done with the above you will have explained why you're wrong and why an apology is in order.
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
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.
I'm curious about the gay marriage and transgender examples you brought up earlier. Here in our liberal bubble, you are right that you generally meet with social opprobrium if you oppose same-sex marriage. I think transgender issues are a bit more hit-and-miss, but let's concede that too for now.
This isn't necessarily true elsewhere, though. There are plenty of communities in our country where being gay consigns you to social ostracism and even the danger of physical violence.
No doubt this is because people in those communities are not libertarian -- but then, so very few people are. So I do wonder what the libertarian response is here? In these communities, they very much do try to shut people up, meanwhile in communities like ours I suppose the charge is that are too loud in taking issue with such silencing. Is the libertarian answer that anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination is just something we should accept?
I don't think this community is a good example. You will generally be met with social opprobrium for just being conservative.
You are in denial if you think we have not been steadily moving left socially.
Who is more "progressive" -- the Democrat who supports overthrowing foreign governments (Syria, Venezuela) and who supports bigger military budgets than Trump asks for and bigger budgets and bigger powers of intrusion for the NSA -- or the Libertarian who opposes all of these things?
So two responses now to my question about anti-gay discrimination, and neither response seems connected to the question. Let me try rephrasing.
Terp's complaint, as I understand it, is that liberals and progressives are intolerant of those with views different from theirs. He specifically notes attitudes around LGBTQ issues: "Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter."
The point I was trying to make is that in many conservative communities, simply being gay or transgender will get you silenced or worse. It seems that terp is saying that liberals and progressives are wrong to be so hostile against anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination. Perhaps, but that suggests he thinks we should merely accept it?
Paul's reply I have no idea how it's remotely related to any of this.
DaveSchmidt said:
When you say that “the major political parties both moved to the right,” though, how do you account for that blue line’s trajectory?
my reference point was 1980 in my first comment. So I was wrong to say the Democrats moved right. But the Democratic movement over the past 40 years is very slight. Certainly nothing like the extreme right turn the GOP took. Given the typical journalistic practice of looking for balance, that suggests the discourse has moved significantly right ward even if the Democrats haven't.
paulsurovell said:
(a) Define the "Democratic base" that you allege Nan and I are not a part of.
(b) Explain how you know who Nan and I have voted for.
(c) Are @sbenois and @Klinker part of the "Democratic base"? Both have said they won't vote if certain candidates are the nominee. Why didn't you include them in your comment?
When you're done with the above you will have explained why you're wrong and why an apology is in order.
I don't know why an apology is in order.
I asked you to tell me how I'm wrong. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't show me how I'm wrong how am I supposed to?
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
(a) Define the "Democratic base" that you allege Nan and I are not a part of.
(b) Explain how you know who Nan and I have voted for.
(c) Are @sbenois and @Klinker part of the "Democratic base"? Both have said they won't vote if certain candidates are the nominee. Why didn't you include them in your comment?
When you're done with the above you will have explained why you're wrong and why an apology is in order.
I don't know why an apology is in order.
I asked you to tell me how I'm wrong. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't show me how I'm wrong how am I supposed to?
So you used the term "Democratic base" but you can't define it.
You said Nan and I represent the 0.5% portion of the Democratic party that is "never guaranteed to vote Democratic" but you don't know how Nan and I have voted so you can't explain why you said that. And you can't explain how you know who is guaranteed to vote Democratic (most don't make announcements like @sbenois and @klinker).
And you won't explain why you omitted @sbenois and @Klinker -- who have said that they won't vote Democratic if certain candidates are nominated -- from your statement.
For these reasons your statement was a gratuitous, ignorant smear.
But I can't help you if you don't know why the purveyor of a smear should apologize.
PVW said:
Paul's reply I have no idea how it's remotely related to any of this.
Not directly related to your comments but offered to broaden the notion of what makes someone a conservative, progressive or libertarian.
paulsurovell said:
A gratuitous, ignorant smear. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You are just out and out the most boring poster on MOL. It really is astounding. The same nonsensical word strings over and over and over, day in and day out. How do you do it?
paulsurovell said:
So you used the term "Democratic base" but you can't define it.
You said Nan and I represent the 0.5% portion of the Democratic party that is "never guaranteed to vote Democratic" but you don't know how Nan and I have voted so you can't explain why you said that. And you can't explain how you know who is guaranteed to vote Democratic (most don't make announcements like @sbenois and @Klinker).
And you won't explain why you omitted @sbenois and @Klinker -- who have said that they won't vote Democratic if certain candidates are nominated -- from your statement.
For these reasons your statement was a gratuitous, ignorant smear.
But I can't help you if you don't know why the purveyor of a smear should apologize.
I don't know why "not part of the Democratic base" is an insult. I don't think Greenwald or Taibbi are part of the Democratic base either. Or Noam Chomsky. Or Jimmy Dore.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
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.
I'm curious about the gay marriage and transgender examples you brought up earlier. Here in our liberal bubble, you are right that you generally meet with social opprobrium if you oppose same-sex marriage. I think transgender issues are a bit more hit-and-miss, but let's concede that too for now.
This isn't necessarily true elsewhere, though. There are plenty of communities in our country where being gay consigns you to social ostracism and even the danger of physical violence.
No doubt this is because people in those communities are not libertarian -- but then, so very few people are. So I do wonder what the libertarian response is here? In these communities, they very much do try to shut people up, meanwhile in communities like ours I suppose the charge is that are too loud in taking issue with such silencing. Is the libertarian answer that anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination is just something we should accept?
I don't think this community is a good example. You will generally be met with social opprobrium for just being conservative.
You are in denial if you think we have not been steadily moving left socially.
Who is more "progressive" -- the Democrat who supports overthrowing foreign governments (Syria, Venezuela) and who supports bigger military budgets than Trump asks for and bigger budgets and bigger powers of intrusion for the NSA -- or the Libertarian who opposes all of these things?
So two responses now to my question about anti-gay discrimination, and neither response seems connected to the question. Let me try rephrasing.
Terp's complaint, as I understand it, is that liberals and progressives are intolerant of those with views different from theirs. He specifically notes attitudes around LGBTQ issues: "Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter."
The point I was trying to make is that in many conservative communities, simply being gay or transgender will get you silenced or worse. It seems that terp is saying that liberals and progressives are wrong to be so hostile against anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination. Perhaps, but that suggests he thinks we should merely accept it?
Paul's reply I have no idea how it's remotely related to any of this.
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.
It is true though. The terms that you are supposed to use change constantly & this is not only in reference to the LGBTQ communities.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
So you used the term "Democratic base" but you can't define it.
You said Nan and I represent the 0.5% portion of the Democratic party that is "never guaranteed to vote Democratic" but you don't know how Nan and I have voted so you can't explain why you said that. And you can't explain how you know who is guaranteed to vote Democratic (most don't make announcements like @sbenois and @Klinker).
And you won't explain why you omitted @sbenois and @Klinker -- who have said that they won't vote Democratic if certain candidates are nominated -- from your statement.
For these reasons your statement was a gratuitous, ignorant smear.
But I can't help you if you don't know why the purveyor of a smear should apologize.
I don't know why "not part of the Democratic base" is an insult. I don't think Greenwald or Taibbi are part of the Democratic base either. Or Noam Chomsky. Or Jimmy Dore.
You're right. All of those you mentioned are too good to be part of the Democratic base. Why would they want to be?
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
The Republican Party has moved far to the right. If there is such a thing as a "center" between the parties, it's moved right.
When you say that “the major political parties both moved to the right,” though, how do you account for that blue line’s trajectory?
I agree. There has definitely been increased polarization. I've never seen anything like it.
ml1 said:
The Republican Party has moved far to the right. If there is such a thing as a "center" between the parties, it's moved right.
I would be interested in the seven years since 2012 (can it possibly be seven years?) , and how things look in the near future. I suspect the leftward trend of that blue line probably continues and might start to accelerate.
terp said:
You're right. All of those you mentioned are too good to be part of the Democratic base. Why would they want to be?
which is why I'm puzzled that Paul is demanding an apology for being called "not part of the Democratic base." I didn't mean it as an insult. I thought he'd take it as a badge of honor.
ml1 said:
terp said:
You're right. All of those you mentioned are too good to be part of the Democratic base. Why would they want to be?
which is why I'm puzzled that Paul is demanding an apology for being called "not part of the Democratic base." I didn't mean it as an insult. I thought he'd take it as a badge of honor.
Why the weasel words? You can clear it up by just saying what you mean by "Democratic base" and why you say I'm not in it, but don't say the same about two prominent posters who've said they won't vote Democratic if a certain candidate is nominated.
And since you are doubling down on a term you won't define, do you consider yourself part of the "Democratic base"?
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
A gratuitous, ignorant smear. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You are just out and out the most boring poster on MOL. It really is astounding. The same nonsensical word strings over and over and over, day in and day out. How do you do it?
@Klinker's just upset that he's apparently not part of the "Democratic base," according to ml1.
paulsurovell said:
@Klinker's just upset that he's apparently not part of the "Democratic base," according to ml1.
Nope, just tired of your nonsense.
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
@Klinker's just upset that he's apparently not part of the "Democratic base," according to ml1.
Nope, just tired of your nonsense.
This post is a real Klinker
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.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
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.
+10
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
(a) Define the "Democratic base" that you allege Nan and I are not a part of.
(b) Explain how you know who Nan and I have voted for.
(c) Are @sbenois and @Klinker part of the "Democratic base"? Both have said they won't vote if certain candidates are the nominee. Why didn't you include them in your comment?
When you're done with the above you will have explained why you're wrong and why an apology is in order.
I don't know why an apology is in order.
I asked you to tell me how I'm wrong. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't show me how I'm wrong how am I supposed to?
So you used the term "Democratic base" but you can't define it.
You said Nan and I represent the 0.5% portion of the Democratic party that is "never guaranteed to vote Democratic" but you don't know how Nan and I have voted so you can't explain why you said that. And you can't explain how you know who is guaranteed to vote Democratic (most don't make announcements like @sbenois and @klinker).
And you won't explain why you omitted @sbenois and @Klinker -- who have said that they won't vote Democratic if certain candidates are nominated -- from your statement.
For these reasons your statement was a gratuitous, ignorant smear.
But I can't help you if you don't know why the purveyor of a smear should apologize.
+10
RealityForAll said:
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
(a) Define the "Democratic base" that you allege Nan and I are not a part of.
(b) Explain how you know who Nan and I have voted for.
(c) Are @sbenois and @Klinker part of the "Democratic base"? Both have said they won't vote if certain candidates are the nominee. Why didn't you include them in your comment?
When you're done with the above you will have explained why you're wrong and why an apology is in order.
I don't know why an apology is in order.
I asked you to tell me how I'm wrong. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't show me how I'm wrong how am I supposed to?
So you used the term "Democratic base" but you can't define it.
You said Nan and I represent the 0.5% portion of the Democratic party that is "never guaranteed to vote Democratic" but you don't know how Nan and I have voted so you can't explain why you said that. And you can't explain how you know who is guaranteed to vote Democratic (most don't make announcements like @sbenois and @klinker).
And you won't explain why you omitted @sbenois and @Klinker -- who have said that they won't vote Democratic if certain candidates are nominated -- from your statement.
For these reasons your statement was a gratuitous, ignorant smear.
But I can't help you if you don't know why the purveyor of a smear should apologize.
+10
nonsense.
Progressives believe society can improve, and they work towards that end. And they've done a pretty good job, if you ask me.
Libertarians just hope things will work out while everyone pursues their self-interest. And this will work because people are so universally full of good intentions. Or something.
OTOH they also are still figuring out if child labor laws are a good thing or not - so they still have some work to do.
paulsurovell said:
Why the weasel words? You can clear it up by just saying what you mean by "Democratic base" and why you say I'm not in it, but don't say the same about two prominent posters who've said they won't vote Democratic if a certain candidate is nominated.
And since you are doubling down on a term you won't define, do you consider yourself part of the "Democratic base"?
I wasn’t discussing the other people. But I’ve never considered people like sbenois as part of the base. Conservative Democrats who sometimes support Republicans aren’t a reliable part of the base.
In your case, your comments here on impeachment and other topics suggest you aren’t ideologically similar to the vast majority of Democrats. Why do you think you are, and why would you even think that’s a positive, given where you stand on issues? Don’t you consider yourself far more independent thinking than a typical Democrat?
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".
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
Why the weasel words? You can clear it up by just saying what you mean by "Democratic base" and why you say I'm not in it, but don't say the same about two prominent posters who've said they won't vote Democratic if a certain candidate is nominated.
And since you are doubling down on a term you won't define, do you consider yourself part of the "Democratic base"?
I wasn’t discussing the other people. But I’ve never considered people like sbenois as part of the base. Conservative Democrats who sometimes support Republicans aren’t a reliable part of the base.
In your case, your comments here on impeachment and other topics suggest you aren’t ideologically similar to the vast majority of Democrats. Why do you think you are, and why would you even think that’s a positive, given where you stand on issues? Don’t you consider yourself far more independent thinking than a typical Democrat?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you consider your ideas mainstream In the Democratic Party?
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.
When you say that “the major political parties both moved to the right,” though, how do you account for that blue line’s trajectory?