Why are the radical left extremists still getting their way?

Post Reply New Topic

Because that part of the left is infuriated by people they perceive as dumber, morally and culturally inferior have gained power

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 03 Sep 2017, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I certainly don't feel like autism give me a better ability to be objective than neurotypicals, also people can more easily be objective about things that don't directly effect them...it is nearly impossible for humans to remain objective about things that directly effect them. At least according to psychology, that is why judges can't judge cases that they have a personal connection to because their emotions/bias may affect their ability to make a fair judgement.

I would agree aspies are better at rationalizing emotions, than actually being more objective...

We all know what objective means.

You obviously don't. Your claims to being more "objective" and "rational" are laughable. The real issue is a lack of empathy. You have no emotional reaction to racists rants targeting black people, yet you irrationally twist something I said into a claim that I was blaming white people for black-on-black crime. I would think part of being "objective" would be having the ability to see things from someone else's point of view.

How did you go from the meaning of objective to a rant about racism? You know this line of reasoning is not going to end well for you, right? I think it's pretty clear to everyone that you're merely looking to continue an unrelated argument on a now-closed thread and one way you have identified of doing this is to simply disagree with everything I say, even if what I'm saying is fairly well accepted knowledge. That leads me to suspect you probably don't really disagree with I'm saying, you're just trying to nit pick and find fault.

I would say that a lack of empathy does indeed play a part in being more objective, it makes it easier to concentrate on the facts alone. Below is one of many people who agree that people with ASD tend to be more logical, she even cites research that suggests the autistic brain uses its logic features in circumstances that the non - autistic brain doesn't.

http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39352

I think most people would agree that autistics tend toward being more logical and less emotional, have a stronger sense of "right", are more detail orientated, and those same people would probably agree that these things combine to make someone better at coming to a more objective conclusion. Being able to see things from other's points of view is the opposite of what us required to be objective, instead you have to focus on the hard facts and nothing else.

No, PETA will always be viewed as being extreme, because the beliefs they base their actions upon are completely unjustifiable and objectively wrong. I don't see how "technology" will allow us to forego eating animals, and I don't particularly like the idea of becoming a vegetarian due to the "evolving culture" you mention. I guess I can hope that by the time this happens (i.e. it becomes as "uncool" to eat meat as it is now to smoke cigarettes) I won't be around anymore.

Whilst I support the idea that we should be humane when it comes to the treatment of animals, and despise cruelty in any form, I also don't believe that animals have "rights"; that idea is one that PETA subscribes to, but it makes no sense.

Well, first of all whilst I agree that people who have autism/A.S. tend to be more logical than your typical neurotypical, being illogical does not disqualify one from being on the so-called spectrum. We also tend to be more emotional, not less (due to our hypersensitivities, and the "stronger sense of right" you mention).

Secondly, if one is trying to determine the reason(s) for another person's emotional state, or otherwise inexplicable reaction to a certain stimulus (ex. being called "racist" by a rabid SJW) then being able to see things from that person's perspective is essential to coming to any objective understanding of it. After all, people accuse us of being "unempathetic" because they themselves lack the ability to see things from our point-of-view, and this causes them to reason poorly, the result being they reach a false conclusion.

"Why are the radical left extremists still getting their way?"

We aren't getting our way. That's why war and starvation still exist.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/commu ... th-century

Oh, so now it's 94 million. Why stop there? Why not make it 500 million. You may as well, it would be just as bogus.

Where do they get these figures from, what do they base them upon? What, exactly, qualifies as being "killed by communism"? Presumably not a natural death, or a road accident, so what?

Have you read many of the comments to the story below? I ask because many of them blame Capitalism for an even bigger death toll (ex. wars of imperialism, genocide, death due to inability to afford healthcare, et cetera). The truth of the matter is that neither system really works in practice the way it does in theory, so we would probably be better off without "isms" altogether, and just used reality and what actually works as guides.

They main feature of any extreme left culture has been the mass suffering of its people. I suppose I could link you articles about the various mass starvations that happened in the Soviet Union, China etc, the various humanitarian disasters etc and you'd just say they're all rubbish too.

Every extreme left culture has failed or is failing, the suffering inflicted on its people huge, it's well documented. Sorry if this seemingly new information to you has come as a shock.

Why does Scandinavia have such a high standard of living?



China isn't left-wing.

Scandinavia isn't extreme left

http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-libe ... t-utopias/

Because it is a good example of you not being rational. A rational person would know that pointing out a reason for a certain behavior is not the same as morally excusing a behavior or shifting blame. The latter was pure assumption on your part.


Your claim was NOT "well accepted knowledge". I pointed out the actual definition of "objective" and it differed from your claim in a very significant way. That the distinction flies straight over your head is not my problem. Other people can draw their own conclusion.


No. There is a trend for right-wingers to make the claim that they are more rational (and therefore superior) simply because they feel no outrage when abuse is targeted at people who are not in the same group as they are. I'm not saying the people on the left don't make logical fallacies. I'm only saying right-wingers make just as many, even if they may appear less "angry". The left may be more sensitive and easier to troll, but the right makes just as many logical errors (though they usually appear to be out of pure stupidity and confirmation bias rather than emotional reactivity).


Not really. Lack of empathy just leads to more confirmation bias towards one's own "side" of the issue. Lack of empathy is not synonymous with lack of emotional reaction. Biased unempathetic people still react emotionally when they perceive their own side is the victim. There's also cognitive empathy (understanding what someone else feels and how they see things without actually "feeling" for them). Someone with cognitive empathy would have the least bias.

Another point I need to make is that many political arguments are not over facts. Due to the is-aught gap, people of different political persuasions may never agree on some major issues, even when they are able to accept the exact same facts.


I'll read it later and respond. Probably should start a new thread rather than derail this one even further.


From everything I've read/seen/experienced, I can only conclude that high-functioning people on the autism spectrum are highly heterogeneous when it comes to personality traits, possibly even more so then neurotypical people. Being more logical and less emotional is not part of the diagnostic criteria, so there is plenty of room for variability. I recently read a paper in the general discussion that concluded that emotional differences in the high-functioning autistic population were more correlated to the presence co-morbid alexithymic personality traits than they were correlated to autism itself.

It is according to the typical right-winger here in the US. Hell, to the American right, Canada is extreme left. People from the UK simply do not understand how nutty US economic conservatism is. It is now almost as much of a secular religion is Marxist Communism was in the Soviet Union.

Do you even know what you're writing? Look at that wall of crap, all to try and argue that being emotionally involved in something makes you better placed to be objective. Something everyone knows simply isn't true. You're only beating this dead horse as you're trying to continue an argument from a closed thread and you're trying to continue over all the silly accusations you made about me into this thread in some pathetic hope that I going to bite.