Divisiveness

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Ohhhhh, I couldn’t tell 

 

 

“Who? Source?”

 

Stop moving the goalposts. This is what you said...

  

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Well, she did fund Russian disinformation against a political opponent and worked with her Democrat cronies to try and use it to derail a Presidential term 

 

... and you still haven't provided a source that:

 

The Steele Dossier was "Russian disinformation" - it wasn't, it was an incomplete work product stolen from the guy working on it and published without his consent

[Clinton] tried to use the Steele Dossier to "derail a presidential term."

 

I asked you to provide sources for those claims. Instead, you moved the goalposts to whatever you've been tangenting on for three pages. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'd push back on this.

 

Maybe politically that's true, but there's certainly immense social power in far left ideologies in modern America

 

What are we talking about in terms of far left ideologies?

 

I think gay marriage was extremely radical just 15 years ago, but has folded into the mainstream remarkably quickly. Transgender issues take it to another level: they are confusing and polarizing, but at the core they simply ask you to accept a person's most personal decision and basic human right. A trans person may otherwise hold conservative views, like Caitlyn Jenner. 

 

The black lives matter movement may seem to lean far left, but it's mostly demanding the level playing field promised two generations ago by generally centrist presidents and politicians. I'd say Reparations and Kill the Pigs qualifies as far left, but it wields no immense social power, more likely the opposite. 

 

f#&% the Rich? That's far left. But fighting the wealth gap isn't. The fact that any attempt to tax the rich or protect the poor is framed as radical left by the mainstream right kinda proves the point. 

 

Does Hollywood, television, popular music and pop culture in general lean liberal?  Sure. Far left?  Not even close.

 

For the most part in modern America, liberals and conservatives eat at the same table, benefit from the same systems in place, bribe the same lobbyists, and enjoy the same freedoms and creature comforts.  

 

Elsewhere in the world you'll find competitive political parties and social movements that are unapologetically Marxist. Outside of my daughter's private all women's college, there is little of this in America.

 

At the moment the Far Right is thrilled by the course America is taking. The Far Left is appalled. And you don't have to be far left to agree with them.

 

Are you sure you don't simply mean liberal ideologies?

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

and you still haven't provided a source that:

A source for what???That the Clinton campaign and Dems paid for it? Yes I did.   Or that it’s Russian Disinformation?? Yea I did that too, unless you don’t believe who the sun source for the dossier was.   Or that the Dems used the info in the Dossier to harm the Trump Presidency?  Ya that’s in the links too.   

[Guy Chamberlin]

It should come as no surprise to folks in the Divisiveness thread that Republicans are making far too much about Hillary Clinton's Russian interference, and Democrats are wrong to pretend it was a nothing burger. Same with Hunter Biden.

 

Still doesn't mean both sides of the spectrum are factually equal. These are just two of the handiest tools for spreading divide. 

 

I know PBS screams liberal to most folks, but their journalism is generally solid:

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-details-on-2016-russia-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

[walksalone]

8 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It should come as no surprise to folks in the Divisiveness thread that Republicans are making far too much about Hillary Clinton's Russian interference, and Democrats are wrong to pretend it was a nothing burger. Same with Hunter Biden.

 

Still doesn't mean both sides of the spectrum are factually equal. These are just two of the handiest tools for spreading divide. 

 

I know PBS screams liberal to most folks, but their journalism is generally solid:

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-details-on-2016-russia-probe-prompt-flawed-allegations-of-espionage

 

Thank you

[Lorewarn]

5 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

What are we talking about in terms of far left ideologies?

 

I think gay marriage was extremely radical just 15 years ago, but has folded into the mainstream remarkably quickly. Transgender issues take it to another level: they are confusing and polarizing, but at the core they simply ask you to accept a person's most personal decision and basic human right. A trans person may otherwise hold conservative views, like Caitlyn Jenner. 

 

The black lives matter movement may seem to lean far left, but it's mostly demanding the level playing field promised two generations ago by generally centrist presidents and politicians. I'd say Reparations and Kill the Pigs qualifies as far left, but it wields no immense social power, more likely the opposite. 

 

f#&% the Rich? That's far left. But fighting the wealth gap isn't. The fact that any attempt to tax the rich or protect the poor is framed as radical left by the mainstream right kinda proves the point. 

 

Does Hollywood, television, popular music and pop culture in general lean liberal?  Sure. Far left?  Not even close.

 

For the most part in modern America, liberals and conservatives eat at the same table, benefit from the same systems in place, bribe the same lobbyists, and enjoy the same freedoms and creature comforts.  

 

Elsewhere in the world you'll find competitive political parties and social movements that are unapologetically Marxist. Outside of my daughter's private all women's college, there is little of this in America.

 

At the moment the Far Right is thrilled by the course America is taking. The Far Left is appalled. And you don't have to be far left to agree with them.

 

Are you sure you don't simply mean liberal ideologies?

 

 

You're editorializing the kindest interpretation of movements and applying it as if it's the foundational truth across a big diverse spectrum of folks that make up trans rights/BLM/etc.

 

Which, I mostly agree with, but for example you can't do that and then contrast it to examples in the rest of the world being unapologetically marxist. Foundational parts of some of the communities involving BLM/trans activism/critical race scholars/etc. are also unapologetically Marxist.

 

Even leftist movements which aren't explicitly linked to some marxist origins still practice some heavy marx-inspired-but-rebranded worldviews and tactics of class (read, privilege or race) warfare and denying the concept of individuals and objectivity in favor of any person being a subjective, representative avatar of their respective power dynamic. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

54 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You're editorializing the kindest interpretation of movements and applying it as if it's the foundational truth across a big diverse spectrum of folks that make up trans rights/BLM/etc.

 

Which, I mostly agree with, but for example you can't do that and then contrast it to examples in the rest of the world being unapologetically marxist. Foundational parts of some of the communities involving BLM/trans activism/critical race scholars/etc. are also unapologetically Marxist.

 

Even leftist movements which aren't explicitly linked to some marxist origins still practice some heavy marx-inspired-but-rebranded worldviews and tactics of class (read, privilege or race) warfare and denying the concept of individuals and objectivity in favor of any person being a subjective, representative avatar of their respective power dynamic. 

I'm genuinely asking what Far Left ideologies you find immensely influential, based on a comparative definition of Far Right ideologies.

In some cases, the idea of sharing resources and cause for the common good is just the basic compact of civilization, not an adherence to Marxism. I'm not sure how the Far Right equivalent works, as it advocates for individual self-determination free of government interference, while also endorsing group behavior, often at the expense of another weaker group.

 

I will stand by my observation that the US has far less of what is considered Far Left than much of the world. Certainly since the 1930s.

 

I do think we are the global leader in cocktail liberals.

[Lorewarn]

9 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

In some cases, the idea of sharing resources and cause for the common good is just the basic compact of civilization, not an adherence to Marxism. I'm not sure how the Far Right equivalent works, as it advocates for individual self-determination free of government interference, while also endorsing group behavior, often at the expense of another weaker group.

 

On the right side, the idea of self-determination and endorsing group behavior at the expense of a weaker group is in some ways a primary biological instinct of social primates. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I will stand by my observation that the US has far less of what is considered Far Left than much of the world. Certainly since the 1930s.

 

 

I agree with this. But I will also say, the undercurrent paradigms at work in much of the center of left-wing activism, especially on behalf of popular marginalized groups, is foundationally built on a far-left lens, whether the folks taking part believe it or not and whether or not it's couched in language of love and helping out the vulnerable. 

 

Marxism and it's worldview have a very attractive elevator pitch, and don't seem "far left" until the hindsight of history shows us the cost. That's part of the problem; "far left" is hard to identify and quantify as too far in the present tense.

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

On the right side, the idea of self-determination and endorsing group behavior at the expense of a weaker group is in some ways a primary biological instinct of social primates. 

 

 

This is an interesting point. We really are hardwired for procreation and survival, including the occasional cruelty that comes along with it. 

 

The idea that we can and should overrule our base instincts in order to create a better, less cruel world is pretty new, biologically speaking. 

 

A show of power can be a person's ability to take something from someone else. Or a show of power can be the willingness to give something away. One has a more obvious advantage, but the other works better in the long run. At the moment we seem to be leaning more Neolithic. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

I agree with this. But I will also say, the undercurrent paradigms at work in much of the center of left-wing activism, especially on behalf of popular marginalized groups, is foundationally built on a far-left lens, whether the folks taking part believe it or not and whether or not it's couched in language of love and helping out the vulnerable. 

 

Marxism and it's worldview have a very attractive elevator pitch, and don't seem "far left" until the hindsight of history shows us the cost. That's part of the problem; "far left" is hard to identify and quantify as too far in the present tense.

 

I get it. Liberalism is the watered down, free-market friendly, Americanized version of Marxism (that Marxists actually despise), but you can trace some roots there. I suppose the foundation of conservatism is built on the more virulent strain of white manifest destiny of the Far Right. 

 

Marxism and Capitalism are both utopian, requiring that everyone happily buy into the system.  

 

We're being sold the extreme and demonized version of both, neither of which is really applicable to 21st Century America. 

 

Both sides behaving s#!tty doesn't mean both sides are equal. The rightward lurch has gone off the tracks. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I get it. Liberalism is the watered down, free-market friendly, Americanized version of Marxism (that Marxists actually despise), but you can trace some roots there. I suppose the foundation of conservatism is built on the more virulent strain of white manifest destiny of the Far Right. 

 

Marxism and Capitalism are both utopian, requiring that everyone happily buy into the system.  

 

We're being sold the extreme and demonized version of both, neither of which is really applicable to 21st Century America. 

 

Both sides behaving s#!tty doesn't mean both sides are equal. The rightward lurch has gone off the tracks. 

America has NEVER been a complete 100% capitalistic society.  It has always been a combination of capitalism and socialism.  And, quite frankly, I don't see how a developed society functions without that combination.  The discussion needs to be made as to where those two systems each function within our society.  

 

People who claim they want a very strong socialistic society (Bernie) many times don't acknowledge how they have benefited from the capitalist side of our society.  

 

On the other side, people who want  a very strong capitalist society, don't acknowledge how they have benefited from the socialist side of our society.

 

So, this is why we constantly talk about the extremes.  Neither side is willing to acknowledge that the other is actually beneficial and needed so we can have an honest discussion as to how society should function.

[Guy Chamberlin]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

America has NEVER been a complete 100% capitalistic society.  It has always been a combination of capitalism and socialism.  And, quite frankly, I don't see how a developed society functions without that combination.  The discussion needs to be made as to where those two systems each function within our society.  

 

People who claim they want a very strong socialistic society (Bernie) many times don't acknowledge how they have benefited from the capitalist side of our society.  

 

On the other side, people who want  a very strong capitalist society, don't acknowledge how they have benefited from the socialist side of our society.

 

So, this is why we constantly talk about the extremes.  Neither side is willing to acknowledge that the other is actually beneficial and needed so we can have an honest discussion as to how society should function.

 

Yep.

[ZRod]

58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

America has NEVER been a complete 100% capitalistic society.  It has always been a combination of capitalism and socialism.  And, quite frankly, I don't see how a developed society functions without that combination.  The discussion needs to be made as to where those two systems each function within our society.  

 

People who claim they want a very strong socialistic society (Bernie) many times don't acknowledge how they have benefited from the capitalist side of our society.  

 

On the other side, people who want  a very strong capitalist society, don't acknowledge how they have benefited from the socialist side of our society.

 

So, this is why we constantly talk about the extremes.  Neither side is willing to acknowledge that the other is actually beneficial and needed so we can have an honest discussion as to how society should function.

Careful now. You sound like a pinko commie!

 

This is the absolute truth. We need a blend of socialism and capitalism (which I think in name would be a social democracy, that we've basically had since Roosevelt).

 

Ideally "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" should be what any compassionate society strives for (I mean you can find almost the same phrasing in the bible), but that's not practical with the human condition of greed and lust for power. 

 

I think we accel the most as humans when we are driven by greed in one form or another (think pure capitalism) but that always needs to be kept in check. People will always step on one another and some just won't be able to climb back up, if they could ever climb at all. Which is why we need social safety nets, and other programs to ensure the less fortunate among us can still live meaningful and fulfilling lives. Pretty sure everyone agrees with that. The question that most of us reasonable people here struggle with is how far do those nets go, and how do we make sure they're not abused.

[commando]

so the right os saying biden is being divisive for saying we should not allow fascism?    the same right that cheered wildly at victor orbans speech at CPAC?   

 

this is the right not being divisive?

[BigRedBuster]