“Because it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible position”
That’s just it, I’d like to have heard what Rick had to say in defence of this position. Instead, he was pretty clearly offended and checked out.
“Because it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible position”
That’s just it, I’d like to have heard what Rick had to say in defence of this position. Instead, he was pretty clearly offended and checked out.
But I don’t think the position is indefensible. A little hyperbolic, as most of us are guilty of on the internet from time to time, but if I had to guess, I’d say he was referring to the left’s penchant for identity politics and big government.
Also things like the more onerous COVID policy decisions, gun rights (you know my position on guns I think, but gun rights supporters feel under attack from the left).
Again, I’m trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical. And suggesting that they are will do nothing but alienate them.
"I’m trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical."
Sadly, the internet often makes that hard to believe. I do try to keep that thought to myself most of the time. Also sadly, more as a matter of politeness than the thought that I'll hear something that is not disingenuous or ridiculous (to my mind).
Quoting George Orwell, "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
I'm in awe that the internet hasn't beaten your good faith in people with different viewpoints out of you.
I don't think this example qualifies as honest disagreement. Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world. That doesn't mean that the ~5% that is of what some call "the left" is excusable but the authorities are clear that 95% of political violence comes from the right, who are, as we speak, threatening widespread violence if Trump is indicted for his "homework."
You've never seen me go in for identity politics, not even on gay issues where I actually do have a dog in the fight. Maybe it's just that I can't bring myself to see identity politics as political, rather an individual suckling grasp for attention, There is nothing in the politics of the authentic left that has any foundation for the demands of the they-people.
I think there some right wing positions that are simply inadmissible in honest discussion, for example, "the vaccines are the cause of COVID" or "Trump won." The big social networks won't even tolerate the former.
"Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world."
Agreed. But nobody said this. You accused somebody of saying this when they hadn't.
I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics.
You can listen to pretty much any speech by Joe Biden (or almost any high-ranking Democrat) to hear the degree to which identity politics has infiltrated the left. Consider how Biden pre-announced that he was going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Or how he wanted COVID relief to "especially" benefit business owners of colour, or his proudly announced all-female press team. On and on.
Productive conversation is impossible if you refuse to recognise this. Just as productive conversation is impossible with people who claim Trump won the election.
That is one of the reasons that I no longer call myself a liberal even though I am more liberal in the classical sense than the modern political leftist which is essentially neo-Marxist with its class warfare theme.
My views on g̶u̶n̶ people control often brings out the word "Trump" in response. B!+&# please! So, I can understand how an actual liberal would resent the association with the shall I permit myself to say it, absurdities of far "left" (sorry).
I am curious why you would repudiate the idea of "class warfare," I would say that class warfare has never been more out in the open. It's one of those things like "envy" that people bring up to justify the inability of the ridiculously wealthy to embrace the notion of "enough."
I reject a lot of the absurdities of what is now called "the left" and I lose sleep worrying that the Democrats are going to make pronouns and bathrooms the foundation of their policy proposals.
Edit: Amazon just recommended "The Bell Curve to me. Just now. Is that what I get for recommending The Mismeasure of Man to you? ¡Wai! The perversity of the universe.
It's not that I don't understand the disdain for the obscenely wealthy. At one time I was the poor white trash living in a trailer park at the edge of the poor side of town. My concern is its purpose and goal.
Without regard to perceived justification for it, its purpose, both in its original state and now is the destruction of the existing system and replacement with another which may or may not prove to be improvement. Not incremental improvement, destruction and replacement.
You wish the destruction of America? I understand that America has not lived up to the lofty ideals at it's inception, but I do think that we are moving in that direction and that is a good thing.
When governments fall the replacement is often violent and harsh. I worked with a Vietnamese man whose father was sent to a reeducation camp after the fall of the South. He returned after three months missing an arm and an eyeball. He tried to flee thru Pol Pots Cambodia and failed. He finally made it as ones of the boat people I know personally. I understand that that was more about vengeance than communism, but it too often accompanies overthrow.
I just can't get on board with the BITFD crowd. That requires violence. I've seen that with my own eyes and don't want it.
Dave! I'm pointing out Lennon's weird lyric! Tell me you aren't serious! Why does Lennon say "in" as in "you can count me in" in both recordings of the song?
I was commenting on the weirdness of that, not endorsing destruction. Whatever my ideology, I have said here many times that my politics is based foremost on the natural kingdom and secondly that people have a right to reasonably stable and predictable lives. That is irreconcilable with lust for destruction.
And when I came here in 1998 as a tourist I saw elderly horrors, but they are all dead now. I will never forget the man with his face burned off.
Chris, I initially put a "like" on your comment and then I noticed the (in) and had a WTF? moment. I thought that was your modification and was shocked since it seemed out of character. I just googled for the lyrics. I never noticed the "(in)". I just put my hearing aids in and went to YouTube and watched the video. I see him move his lips but I still cannot hear the word "in". What a gutless POS he was to so clearly sing an emphasized out and inaudibly say in. I assume that the () around in indicates that it is inaudible in the written lyrics. After all these years you've just changed my thoughts about that song.
I apologize for thinking (in astonished wonderment) that you could have such a thought. My frequent use of () in writing is not for the purpose it appears to be for in that song. Mia culpa.
Don’t forget, Lennon wrote that song and it’s a broadside against the pretentious beret-wearing “revolutionaries" of the time. Putting on airs, talking about the proletariat, smoking imported French cigarettes; Lennon clearly disdained the shit out of them, the whole song does. I wouldn’t read too much into the one word, maybe it was just a dig at those who couldn’t decide.
Lennon took a lot of heat from the "revolutionary" left for the song and spent much of his life advocating for social change but always doubtful about violent means for achieving it. Remember the full page WAR IS OVER Xmas message in the New York Times?
I definitely don't think that extra word was him promoting destruction. Whatever it meant, we may never know (unless it's explained in some interview somewhere).
"I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics."
OK this part gave me pause, I think you have a real point here but please allow me some quibble.
I have actually studied leftist politics; I hung out at Red and Black Books in my 20s, I've read Marx (Karl, not Groucho), I live in a Communist country. My definition isn't so nebulous as to make it synonymous with "the Democratic Party" (I bet even AOC believes in free markets) or "anyone the right hates." I would say that the right is every bit as steeped in IP albeit with different identities (their own, not minorities real and imagined).
If you don't mind I would like to take this offline, I don't think others want to read it and I am uncomfortable engaging in self-defense. I'm at cheopys@gmail.com.
Hey Chris, my emails are already a nightmare of triage that I wouldn't want to add a conversation to. but you can DM me on Twitter. You can find me at @steevqj
“Because it was nonsense. "The left is trying to destroy individual freedoms." I'd expect that from Epoch Times or Newsmax. It's an indefensible position”
That’s just it, I’d like to have heard what Rick had to say in defence of this position. Instead, he was pretty clearly offended and checked out.
But I don’t think the position is indefensible. A little hyperbolic, as most of us are guilty of on the internet from time to time, but if I had to guess, I’d say he was referring to the left’s penchant for identity politics and big government.
Also things like the more onerous COVID policy decisions, gun rights (you know my position on guns I think, but gun rights supporters feel under attack from the left).
Again, I’m trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical. And suggesting that they are will do nothing but alienate them.
"I’m trying to drive home the point that people can disagree with you without being stupid or nonsensical."
Sadly, the internet often makes that hard to believe. I do try to keep that thought to myself most of the time. Also sadly, more as a matter of politeness than the thought that I'll hear something that is not disingenuous or ridiculous (to my mind).
Quoting George Orwell, "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
I'm in awe that the internet hasn't beaten your good faith in people with different viewpoints out of you.
I don't think this example qualifies as honest disagreement. Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world. That doesn't mean that the ~5% that is of what some call "the left" is excusable but the authorities are clear that 95% of political violence comes from the right, who are, as we speak, threatening widespread violence if Trump is indicted for his "homework."
You've never seen me go in for identity politics, not even on gay issues where I actually do have a dog in the fight. Maybe it's just that I can't bring myself to see identity politics as political, rather an individual suckling grasp for attention, There is nothing in the politics of the authentic left that has any foundation for the demands of the they-people.
I think there some right wing positions that are simply inadmissible in honest discussion, for example, "the vaccines are the cause of COVID" or "Trump won." The big social networks won't even tolerate the former.
"Someone who says that the Capitol invasion was BLM or antifa is either lying or so delusional as to be beyond reach. Someone who says that "the left" is responsible for most political violence is not living in this world."
Agreed. But nobody said this. You accused somebody of saying this when they hadn't.
I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics.
You can listen to pretty much any speech by Joe Biden (or almost any high-ranking Democrat) to hear the degree to which identity politics has infiltrated the left. Consider how Biden pre-announced that he was going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Or how he wanted COVID relief to "especially" benefit business owners of colour, or his proudly announced all-female press team. On and on.
Productive conversation is impossible if you refuse to recognise this. Just as productive conversation is impossible with people who claim Trump won the election.
That is one of the reasons that I no longer call myself a liberal even though I am more liberal in the classical sense than the modern political leftist which is essentially neo-Marxist with its class warfare theme.
My views on g̶u̶n̶ people control often brings out the word "Trump" in response. B!+&# please! So, I can understand how an actual liberal would resent the association with the shall I permit myself to say it, absurdities of far "left" (sorry).
I am curious why you would repudiate the idea of "class warfare," I would say that class warfare has never been more out in the open. It's one of those things like "envy" that people bring up to justify the inability of the ridiculously wealthy to embrace the notion of "enough."
I reject a lot of the absurdities of what is now called "the left" and I lose sleep worrying that the Democrats are going to make pronouns and bathrooms the foundation of their policy proposals.
Edit: Amazon just recommended "The Bell Curve to me. Just now. Is that what I get for recommending The Mismeasure of Man to you? ¡Wai! The perversity of the universe.
It's not that I don't understand the disdain for the obscenely wealthy. At one time I was the poor white trash living in a trailer park at the edge of the poor side of town. My concern is its purpose and goal.
Without regard to perceived justification for it, its purpose, both in its original state and now is the destruction of the existing system and replacement with another which may or may not prove to be improvement. Not incremental improvement, destruction and replacement.
https://youtu.be/BGLGzRXY5Bw
"But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out (in)."
both recordings of the song
You wish the destruction of America? I understand that America has not lived up to the lofty ideals at it's inception, but I do think that we are moving in that direction and that is a good thing.
When governments fall the replacement is often violent and harsh. I worked with a Vietnamese man whose father was sent to a reeducation camp after the fall of the South. He returned after three months missing an arm and an eyeball. He tried to flee thru Pol Pots Cambodia and failed. He finally made it as ones of the boat people I know personally. I understand that that was more about vengeance than communism, but it too often accompanies overthrow.
I just can't get on board with the BITFD crowd. That requires violence. I've seen that with my own eyes and don't want it.
Dave! I'm pointing out Lennon's weird lyric! Tell me you aren't serious! Why does Lennon say "in" as in "you can count me in" in both recordings of the song?
I was commenting on the weirdness of that, not endorsing destruction. Whatever my ideology, I have said here many times that my politics is based foremost on the natural kingdom and secondly that people have a right to reasonably stable and predictable lives. That is irreconcilable with lust for destruction.
And when I came here in 1998 as a tourist I saw elderly horrors, but they are all dead now. I will never forget the man with his face burned off.
Chris, I initially put a "like" on your comment and then I noticed the (in) and had a WTF? moment. I thought that was your modification and was shocked since it seemed out of character. I just googled for the lyrics. I never noticed the "(in)". I just put my hearing aids in and went to YouTube and watched the video. I see him move his lips but I still cannot hear the word "in". What a gutless POS he was to so clearly sing an emphasized out and inaudibly say in. I assume that the () around in indicates that it is inaudible in the written lyrics. After all these years you've just changed my thoughts about that song.
I apologize for thinking (in astonished wonderment) that you could have such a thought. My frequent use of () in writing is not for the purpose it appears to be for in that song. Mia culpa.
Don’t forget, Lennon wrote that song and it’s a broadside against the pretentious beret-wearing “revolutionaries" of the time. Putting on airs, talking about the proletariat, smoking imported French cigarettes; Lennon clearly disdained the shit out of them, the whole song does. I wouldn’t read too much into the one word, maybe it was just a dig at those who couldn’t decide.
Lennon took a lot of heat from the "revolutionary" left for the song and spent much of his life advocating for social change but always doubtful about violent means for achieving it. Remember the full page WAR IS OVER Xmas message in the New York Times?
I definitely don't think that extra word was him promoting destruction. Whatever it meant, we may never know (unless it's explained in some interview somewhere).
My hearing is awful (tonsillitis) and I’ve always heard that.
No foul, though. Cheers.
"I know you've never gone in for identity politics. That doesn't mean that the left isn't the side of the political aisle where identity politics resides. You can't redefine the political left to be "only the bits that I agree with." Significant, powerful, influential portions of the political left have lost their way on identity politics."
OK this part gave me pause, I think you have a real point here but please allow me some quibble.
I have actually studied leftist politics; I hung out at Red and Black Books in my 20s, I've read Marx (Karl, not Groucho), I live in a Communist country. My definition isn't so nebulous as to make it synonymous with "the Democratic Party" (I bet even AOC believes in free markets) or "anyone the right hates." I would say that the right is every bit as steeped in IP albeit with different identities (their own, not minorities real and imagined).
If you don't mind I would like to take this offline, I don't think others want to read it and I am uncomfortable engaging in self-defense. I'm at cheopys@gmail.com.
Hey Chris, my emails are already a nightmare of triage that I wouldn't want to add a conversation to. but you can DM me on Twitter. You can find me at @steevqj