Why are the radical left extremists still getting their way?
DreamsWhatDreams
Hummingbird
Joined: 4 Sep 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Somewhere, I guess.
04 Sep 2017, 9:45 pm
Extremism is extremism. I consider myself a liberatarian (no, not tea party MAGA style liberatarian) centrist who believes elements of both the left and right have validity. I find that now, the radical elements of the left have gotten so extreme that they're now similar to the very people they're supposed to be opposing (the authoritarian right) and I think now both of the authoritarian sides are just going on a crap flinging spree while most people look on in confusion. It's a shame though because it means some of the more sensible aspects on both sides (I've met both socialists and conservatives who have logical, sane approaches to things) are being thrown out as this populist, authoritarian, highly immature mentality spreads, and we're caught in the middle of it, left, right or center. I feel like the extremes on both sides have a callous disreguard for humanity. But of course, politics has always been a confusing s**tshow.
tl;dr: I don't think the radical left are getting away with anything. I just think that totalitarian and populist mentalities are making a comeback, on both the left and the right.
_________________
fleeting
ˈfliːtɪŋ/
adjective:
lasting for a very short time. See also, life.
Last edited by DreamsWhatDreams on 04 Sep 2017, 9:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
04 Sep 2017, 9:45 pm
Lintar wrote:
Yes, his failure to provide an adequate response is a sure indicator that he actually has no response worth giving to offer. It signifies defeat, it's an admission of an inability to further support one's argument, one's position.
Wow...we have ourselves another genius. Yep, you're right, the fact that I'm not getting sucked into troll bait is because I am wrong and admitting defeat. I've really never seen that response before... If someone doesn't want to get involved in trolling then make all kind of negative assumptions and statements as a way of punishing them and trying to draw them into the argument after all. Such original tactics never seen before, how do you come up with them?
Listen to yourself, you're acting like a child. Grow up.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
04 Sep 2017, 9:53 pm
Chichikov wrote:
marshall wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
marshall wrote:
No it doesn't.
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.
Being objective is seeing something without your personal emotions or biases effecting it.
_________________
We won't go back.
04 Sep 2017, 11:33 pm
Chichikov wrote:
I was referring to comments regarding the extreme left though which is why I constrained my reply to the extreme left. It's called keeping on topic.
No, it's called being dishonest.
Chichikov wrote:
Nah you're ok, you're not the first person I've seen who's style of arguing is to make statements then simply dismiss any evidence given to the contrary as being from a flawed source. I find it quite tedious to be honest. I mean at you really saying you don't accept that past extreme left governments have failed and been disastrous for their people? If you refuse to accept that then there's no point discussing the subject in general.
I've called your bluff. You find it "tedious" to be honest? I actually prefer honesty myself, and I don't find it tiring at all.
Chichikov wrote:
Lol what are you talking about now? Are you saying I'm ultra right? Because I simply point out a fact that all extreme left governments have failed I must be ultra right? Where is the logic in that at all? Can't I just be someone stating the obvious? In your mind does everyone have to be an extremist? You're just one of a long list of people who does nothing but throw slurs and names at people who say something you disagree with. "He says communist governments have failed, he must be a Nazi racist!"
Listen to yourself, it's pathetic.
Listen to yourself, it's pathetic.
So now you choose to resort to name-calling. No, I'm not "pathetic", I'm right. What on Earth do you mean by the term "extreme left"? Define it for me. It's meaningless as far as I'm concerned, and yet you use the term as though it's meaning were self-evident.
04 Sep 2017, 11:46 pm
Chichikov wrote:
Wow...we have ourselves another genius.
Yes, I am a genius. Glad you acknowledge that fact.
Chichikov wrote:
Yep, you're right, the fact that I'm not getting sucked into troll bait is because I am wrong and admitting defeat.
Yes, we agree that you are wrong and admitting defeat. This wasn't "troll bait" though.
Chichikov wrote:
I've really never seen that response before...
You've obviously lived a sheltered life then.
Chichikov wrote:
If someone doesn't want to get involved in trolling then make all kind of negative assumptions and statements as a way of punishing them and trying to draw them into the argument after all. Such original tactics never seen before, how do you come up with them?
How do I come up with them? I'm a genius, remember. You said so yourself.
Chichikov wrote:
Listen to yourself, you're acting like a child. Grow up.
I'm "acting like a child" because I have uncovered a genuine troll? Yes, I'm talking about YOU. A troll is someone who deliberately tries to provoke someone into an overly-emotional online exchange for the pure sake of its supposed entertainment value. I have not done this. All I have done here is point out some of the very serious flaws in some of the statements that you have made here, whilst not stooping to the level of a genuine troll by calling you a "child", and "pathetic". I did not advise you to "grow up" either.
Look, I am right and you are wrong. Just accept it and move on.
05 Sep 2017, 12:42 am
Chichikov wrote:
Lintar wrote:
No, it's called being dishonest.
Thread is about extreme left politics. I talk about extreme left politics. You say that's dishonest. To focus on the subject being asked about is dishonest.
Go fish somewhere else, I not biting.
And yet you are biting.
Yes, the thread is about "left politics", but your earlier statement that got this whole argument between the two of us going was your claim that nations that adopt "extreme left" policies generally end up in ruins, whilst I pointed out that extremism in general is ruinous. You gave the very strong impression that extreme right-wing policies are generally beneficial and therefore to be preferred. When I disagreed with you you started attacking me personally.
05 Sep 2017, 1:30 am
Chichikov wrote:
So you admit you're trolling?
No.
Chichikov wrote:
Quote what I said that gave you that impression.
Quote:
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.
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 no mention of right-wing regimes causing mass suffering? The only plausible answer I can think of is bias.
05 Sep 2017, 1:38 am
Lintar wrote:
Why no mention of right-wing regimes causing mass suffering? The only plausible answer I can think of is bias.
Why would I? The thread is about left wing politics. I was responding to someone who said that extreme left politics is the solution to everything so I was reminding him that it has always historically failed.
Be honest...you're just projecting onto me opinions and arguments that I have never said, you have then devoted numerous posts surrounding this projection, demanding that I justify myself when I have no need to. I never said or even implied the things you are accusing me of. You have gone on and on about this like a dog with a bone, trying to draw me into some pointless argument that (hopefully you can now see) has no merit and no foundation whatsoever.
05 Sep 2017, 6:03 am
Lintar wrote:
marshall wrote:
I don't think you understand what you mean by "objectively wrong".
Okay, then just plain old wrong then.
Wrong according to you.
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Also, in the future we will be probably be able to grow meat without raising and killing live sentient animals. That is if civilization doesn't collapse before that.
"Grow" meat without raising animals? Ur, no. Any "meat" produced this way would be so artificial that it couldn't even be called food. Yuk.
Just the thought disgusts you? While I don't completely trust giant corporations to research possible harmful the effects of their products, I don't believe food is automatically harmful just because it's artificially produced. I prefer to form opinions based on evidence, not some vague "ick" factor.
Quote:
marshall wrote:
It makes no sense because you disagree with it. Giving up eating meat and diary would be inconvenient for you. Everything else is rationalization. You can persuade, but you can't objectively "prove" anything.
Proof is irrelevant. It's evidence that counts, not proof. I can't even prove to you that I even exist, but the evidence of the text before you is suggestive that I do.
What? You haven't provided concrete evidence of anything.
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Most people understand that "rights" don't exist in nature. A scientist can't go out looking for them.
Science isn't everything. There is only so much it can accomplish.
So where do you find "evidence" for the existence of "rights" then? The idea that rights extend to the entire human species is a relatively modern concept.
Quote:
marshall wrote:
Anyways I'm on your side. I eat meat. I just admit that I can't "prove" PETA wrong.
You don't need to. It is up to them to give their reasons, based upon what evidence they have, that they are right.
The assertion that something is right or wrong is an assertion of values. Evidence can only be used to back claims that are factual in nature (i.e. claims regarding physical reality).
Quote:
marshall wrote:
I do however realize that animal farming is highly inefficient in terms of use of energy and resource usage. I think if humanity moves away from meat-eating, it will be for practical rather than moralistic reasons, but after the change occurs people will see our previous ways as barbaric and backwards. I can't say I'm completely sure though. The way things are going I don't know if civilization will continue to advance. People are becoming afraid and backward looking these days, and if history is any indication that usually spells decline.
Yes, we agree - civilisation is now in serious decline. What so many seem to think of as being progress just isn't, as far as I'm concerned (ex. GM "foods" - ugh! Give that poison to someone else).
The problem isn't "progress" itself. The problem is mega-corporations that don't have the interest of those who aren't their shareholders in mind. Do I blindly trust Monsanto? f**k no. However, I also don't see much evidence that GMOs are harmful just because they aren't natural. I see just as much evidence of confirmation bias in the anti-GMO crowd as the anti-vaxer crowd. These people cherry-pick studies and rely on bias.
Anyways, the answer is demanding government that actually protects the interest of ordinary people. Forgoing civilization and going backwards won't make life better. Perhaps civilization is in decline, but the reason is the majority of humans are myopic idiots hung up on primitive tribal mindsets.
07 Sep 2017, 7:04 am
I see Lintar has gone quite quiet, as expected from his type. Goes on and on abusing and accusing others and when proven he just shuts up rather than being man enough to apologise.
Anyway, a few more links for you folk who think socialism is the answer to anything
http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/02/socia ... venezuela/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... orbynista/
DinoMongoosePenguin
Pileated woodpecker
Joined: 21 Aug 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 176
Location: The NSA Knows
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| radical honesty |
16 Mar 2024, 4:53 pm |
| Genes Play a Very Small Role In Determining Left-Handedness |
21 Apr 2024, 4:54 pm |
