One does not simply "argue" with Willow.

One instead smashes one's head against the wall repeatedly.

No, see, I'm aware that wage stagnation has occurred, but it's not clear to me how Reagan or Thatcher are solely or even mostly to blame for it, as you and your links have not proven, despite your assertion to that effect in your original post.

Btw, EPI has a pretty clear left-leaning bias, so perhaps one thing you should stop and think about is whether you are fully informed. You asked why some people are shifting to the right. Well, maybe one reason for that is due to the echo chamber of the left, which believes the information it possesses is self-evidently factual and not open to dispute.

If they do, prove it.

No, I don't.

The 70s? Reagan became president in 1980; Thatcher the PM in 1979.

Most if not all the economic policies of Reagan and Thatcher of an unbridled and self-regulating economy have failed as shown in the 2008 financial meltdown. — Question

Prove it.

I've noticed something similar happen in myself. I've always been fairly apolitical, in that I honestly don't care to think much about politics or current affairs, despite still attempting to be reasonably well informed about them. I prefer to mind not the times but the eternities, as the phrase goes and regard this simply as an aspect of my character. However, when the Great Recession occurred, my concerns began to change. I was greatly irritated that forces outside of my control were likely going to affect my livelihood. So I began to look into the causes of the economic collapse with great interest and found myself in agreement with various critics on the left. I read and watched lectures from people like Richard Wolff and David Harvey, for example, both influential Marxist thinkers, and for a time, identified as a democratic socialist. I also voted for Obama and drifted more to the left on certain social issues like abortion, although I never really had any firm convictions regarding such issues until now.

In the last year and a half or so, I have begun to shed the aforementioned irritation and, along with it, the vague leftism I had adopted. To be annoyed at what one has no control over is foolish and a waste of time and energy. My move to the right has been facilitated by increasing exposure to and disagreement with the left, particularly in academia, increasing exposure to and agreement with the other side, and a reconsideration of how the metaphysical and ethical principles I hold to apply to various political issues. Speaking of abortion, I'm now firmly opposed to it, and am also much less angry with capitalism, which I realize I misunderstood and straw-manned. The simple reason I gravitated to the left, looking back, is as Dr. Johnson says, because of ignorance, pure ignorance.

Take a gander at how Israel treats refugees and migrants, especially from African countries. It's a complete breakdown of Israel's supposedly "democratic" justice system. — Heister Eggcart

These refugees have chosen Israel for a reason, presumably, and it wasn't because they felt they would be living in worse conditions compared to where they came from. It's hard to have high standards, because it can be difficult to live up to them. However, it is better to live in a society in which the expectation is that they will be lived up to and where the failure to do so produces shame and political opposition than one in which such standards are rejected, as one sees in the neighboring countries these migrants didn't choose to come to.

Israel is the only one? — Heister Eggcart

Yep.

Rogue states like Iran? What does that even mean? The only part of the Israeli military that concerns itself with Iran directly is information and investigation. If by Israel's "military bulwark" you mean "we have nukes, sit down" then sure, I guess. You must, of course, admit this intimidation is one reason why Iran has become so worrisome for those in the West (who have nuclear weapons), because Iran wants them too. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, Iran is a rogue state. And no, the Israeli military is not sitting on its hands. It has been actively bombing Iranian nuclear sites for decades. Israel has nukes for reasons of self-defense. Iran wants to procure them for reasons of destroying Israel, as its leaders have unequivocally and consistently admitted. That is no small difference.

One could argue an outlier like North Korea embodies a purely homogeneous ethnic, (non)religious, and cultural nation state, yet I wouldn't see very many people say that NK is working as intended. — Heister Eggcart

It's not culturally homogeneous, though. The state has attempted to impose a certain culture onto its citizens by force, the result of which is not culture at all, but the obliteration of it, since culture is something that develops naturally and freely by the interaction of humans. That being said, my position is willing to accommodate exceptions, as I'm making deliberately general claims.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that the more homogeneous a community is, there lessens then the possibility for division within said community. I don't think that follows very well. — Heister Eggcart

Well, if it's a mistake, then you need to show why it's a mistake, instead of merely declaring it to be as you have done here.

I wouldn't see the US as overcoming its divisions particularly well, now or in the past. — Heister Eggcart

I was making a comparative claim. Point me to another multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural society that is as populous, safe, prosperous, and free as the US. Historically speaking, the US is quite unique in overcoming the challenges associated with such a society. This is undeniable and part of what goes under the umbrella of American exceptionalism.

If it's a Western value to tear down instead of build up, then perhaps this is why the West is so in love with Israel. — Heister Eggcart

To build up a society, one must first be confident that the beneficiaries of said building will actually appreciate and reciprocate it. That cannot be said of Palestinians, whose airwaves and political factions are filled with ethnic hatreds, religious bigotry, and injunctions to violence.

Slowly shove them deeper into the desert, thus making them even madder, just as Israel is doing right now? — Heister Eggcart

I would encourage them to live in the plenitude of countries around Israel whose populations are comprised of their fellow Arab Muslims. Failing that, I would shut down their schools, reopen ones that aren't training future terrorists and their sympathizers, destroy Hamas and make them illegal, and enforce international rights laws.

Look at the brief list I provided of things Israelis can be proud of and then note the distinct absence of and even hostility toward them in Palestine.

Yeah, and I know Willow will be the PC Gestapo officer who arrests me.

Fuck Breitbart, though.

Well, I suppose it's in order to understand myself and the world.

Palestine wasn't an independent nation. — Bitter Crank

A good point. Most people also seem to forget that Palestinians are Arabs. Their displacement isn't the same as, say, the displacement of the Kurds from their ethnic homelands. There are plenty of Arab states all around Israel for them to go to, but these same Arab states like the Palestinians where they are, simply because they provide good propaganda against Israel.

Yet at the same time, "self-defense" has become the catch-all appeal Israel now employs in order to justify human rights abuses and their undeniably belligerent border policing. — Heister Eggcart

You're just kicking the can down the road a bit further. What human rights abuses? As for border policing, this is surely very necessary, considering the sheer number of terrorist groups and even nation states nearby who would love to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jewish people.

There's really nothing to be particularly proud of in Israel besides its physical history — Heister Eggcart

Complete nonsense. It's the only safe, prosperous, democratic polity with an educated, scientifically literate citizenry in the entire Middle East. Its military is a necessary bulwark against rogue states like Iran. It also has some of the best archaeologists, classically trained musicians, and scientists in the world.

most of the world finds it prudent that Israel be a sovereign state based almost solely upon its ethnic cultural identity. However, nobody gives two cents toward the Kurds, Abkhazians, or lest we forget, the Romani — Heister Eggcart

This is not an argument against Israel as a state. I'm in favor of the Kurds and so on to be granted their own states (which they partially do in northern Iraq).

Israel only serves to highlight the fact that nation states should not be ethnic or culturally based — Heister Eggcart

I could not disagree more and in fact find this view to be quite dangerous. The more ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous a nation state is, the less crime, violence, etc there is in it. We see in Europe the complete and utter failure of multiculturalism, as even its most ardent proponents now admit. Iraq has been a colossal failure from the beginning. Simply put, you cannot expect people from different ethnic and opposing religious and cultural backgrounds to get along, which is to recognize that human beings are flawed creatures predisposed to tribalism. It can be overcome, yes, and I would count the US as possibly the only exception in this regard, but the US overcame it to the extent that it has through economic growth and a strong belief in its founding documents, which not all nations can boast of.

Secondly, Western culture is superior to many other cultures, so if fewer nations adopt Western values, or the West itself decides to reject them, as is increasingly the case, then civilization, prosperity, the rule of law, and human rights will have taken significant blows. Culture matters, and it matters much, much more than people think. The light of past civilizations was not put out so much by military defeat as by cultural devolution and decay.

cultural genocide — Heister Eggcart

If that's what you think it's doing, then I submit that this is a good thing. Israeli culture is superior to Palestinian culture. Notice that this does not mean Israelis are superior to Palestinians.

Calling me out I see. I suppose I shall indulge you.

I find the recurring anti-American thing — Mongrel

You won't find that from me.

What brought you to PF originally? — Mongrel

The need to alleviate boredom.

You're an odd one, and this conversation is going nowhere at a breakneck pace. I'm out.

Is my lack of asking preventing you from providing one? Don't be coy with me.

And I was laughing at the post to which I responded. As for your question, I don't really understand it.

Israel's domestic and foreign policies are absurd. — Heister Eggcart

Explain.

That you felt the need to express your apathy in the way you did betrays that you are apathetic to the degree that you implied. The truly apathetic person wouldn't respond like that and probably not even respond at all.

Fair enough.

Sorry Baden, where are the damning quotes? I don't see them. I think Bannon is a scumbag, like other conservatives, but that doesn't mean he's really a racist or an anti-semite.

Trump is as much a white nationalist as I am a Martian.

'cause I reeeeaaallly don't give a fuck. — Mongrel

Ooh, what a tough guy.

It's a good thing to be opposed to a sovereign nation state?

Don't be dull. "Earned" is a term of art, not a fact reflecting any actual work. Labor produces all wealth, the bourgeoisie "earn" it through theft. — Bitter Crank

You goddamn communist. I knew it.

Boring. — Mongrel

You're boring!

The robber barons earned — Bitter Crank

This is oxymoronic. If they earned their wealth, then they didn't steal it and so cannot be called robbers.

Brexit might be a de-globalizing move. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily. It might shift where trade is being done a bit (more with the US, less with the EU), but Brexit was primarily about sovereignty, not trade.

All these are de-globalizing actions. — Bitter Crank

Well, globalism is a rather large umbrella. I would say that decreasing illegal immigration is not anti-globalist in terms of trade, but it is in the sense that it goes against the desire for open borders.

Global trade actually started with the Atlantic slave trade — Mongrel

No it didn't. Global trade has been around for a long time, going back to ancient times. Ever heard of the silk road? The only difference now is the speed and extent it is happening.

Obviously, I won't exist again after I die. — csalisbury

Is that really so obvious? Depending on your metaphysical presuppositions, this claim may or may not be so.

Need I be concerned about what will happen to me in this life?

You ask this as though you have a choice in the matter. You will be concerned about what happens to you regardless of whether you ought to. As to whether you ought to, irrespective of whether you have any choice, I think you ought to. To be concerned with what will happen to you in this life, to be concerned with suffering, is show moral awareness.

Explain why it makes sense for someone who knows he will soon be tortured - but isn't being tortured yet - to fear the impending event. — csalisbury

Well, given that one cannot but fear potential harm, and having dismissed the possibility of the stoicism of the sage, then it is perfectly rational to feel in such a way. It would irrational not to fear harm.

You're thinking of a theologian. I mean a secular scholar (who may or may not be religious personally) who studies the religion.

Yes, it's that and it's that Islamic scholarship is smaller and less critical than Christian scholarship. Again, I don't see how anyone can deny that.

You must have a low estimation of my intelligence if you think I would make such a statement while thinking it admitted of no exceptions. The fact that I have gone out of my way to qualify it for you also ought to deflate your concern.

Why, have you? If not, then as I suggested earlier, let's cease this.

is this statement harmless? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yep.

Would you accept me saying it all over the place and it garnering respect from all corners of society? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yep.

Yikes indeed-- but it's true. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope.

Alright, thanks for the anecdote.

You don't have to pretend, you just have to see that that's what I was trying to say. I'm sorry you didn't get it. Now let's stop this silly conversation.

and so acting like Islam is just savagery amounts to equating their way of life, and so them (the non-white muslim), with nothing but a heinous harm to the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is pure insanity. A belief system and a person are two different things. Criticizing the former doesn't harm anyone. For your claim to get off the ground, you would have to expand the notion of harm to near meaninglessness.

What it also says about you is that you don't value free speech, which is good to know, if only to know that I will have people like you to thank for putting me in jail in the future for speaking ill of a particular religion.

Brilliant rebuttal.

Your mentioning Saudi Arabia reminds me of just how hostile that country has been to scholars trying to discover more about the Islamic and pre-Islamic past of the region.

So no, @csalisbury I don't think I'm being dumb. I was making a comparison of the amount and level of critical scholarship on Islam and Christianity, concluding that the latter is greater than the former, which I don't see how you can dispute. As such, it was intended to be a very general statement, so your anecdote is quite irrelevant. Plus, I would love to have sat in your class to confirm your impression.

Alright, so let's ask ourselves why it lags behind. The reason is quite simple. Sure, the West was Christian, thus resulting in scholarship on the Bible. However, the Islamic world doesn't value or permit critical scholarship of their religious texts to any comparable degree. And for many of the Western scholars who do work on Islam, in say "Islamic studies" departments, they are primarily not interested in the things I listed. Instead, you'll find a lot of stuff to do with leftist identity politics, postmodernist theory, and so on.

Fear and intimidation are also things to take into consideration.

I was making a comparison. Quranic scholarship is a joke compared to Old and New Testament scholarship. That's simply a fact. Muhammad is not scrutinized or written about as Jesus is either.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, in other words.

There's a very strange marriage between far left radicalism and fundamentalist Islam. I've yet to fully understand why, but it's something I keep seeing. My current explanation is that it has something to do with the white guilt complex TGW talks about. Teh brown folks seem oppressed! And since they obviously can't oppress themselves (being brown), it must be the West and white males who are the cause of their misfortune.

White, non-religious leftist academics in the humanities and social "sciences" in particular are infatuated with Islam, but their research always has an apologetic tone to it. Contrast this with most academics who study Christianity. There's no desire to understand how the Quran was written, who wrote it, Muhammad's place in history, etc. No, just endless books and articles being created on how queer black Muslims in Belgium negotiate relations of power. Blegh. My professor is merely typical in this regard.