Another great post, Erik. The anecdotal experiences you relate parallel those I recently experienced in grad school and which were a main ingredient in my pivot to the right politically.

about women marching for equality as representing "murderousness" — Baden

You are deliberately misreading his tweet. He was talking about a certain doctrine of equity.

calling BLM far left "terrorists" — Baden

The FBI's counter-terrorism division has recently declared that "black identity extremists" pose a violent threat. The Dallas and Louisiana shooters were inspired by the BLM movement, certain tendons of which have called for the murder of police officers. The official BLM organization is directly influenced by and praises as a hero, Assata Shakur, a black extremist, cop killer, and armed bank robber on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list.

You wouldn't hesitate to call the white supremacist organizations in Charlottesville, some of whose members were inspired to committed murder, terrorist organizations. And neither would I. But if that's the case, then there's no reason not to paint BLM with the same brush.

You are deliberately misreading his tweet. He was talking about a certain doctrine of equity. — Thorongil

Trudeau: We see you, we hear you, and @MaryamMonsef and our government will keep fighting for gender equality in Canada

Peterson: Is that the murderous equity doctrine @JustinTrudeau?

It's not even close to being ambiguous. And you agreed with him.



As for your comments on BLM. They are totally unjustified. You've admitted above that they are not actually a terrorist organization, and no official body in the US considers them so. And only the nuttiest of the far right refer to them that way .

E.g. Alex Jones:

"Black Lives Matter’ is a domestic terrorist organization that has been given legitimacy by the media and the Obama administration, and is part of a much bigger plan to destabilize America and bring in UN control to take over." Link

This is your current level (and it's not shared by the vast majority of conservatives, thankfully). And as long as you're that hysterical about a black activist group that was formed to protect its community against unjustifiable state violence and a group of women marching for equality, you have no right to talk about hysterics on the left, and there is no possibility of sensible dialogue with you.

Trudeau: We see you, we hear you, and MaryamMonsef and our government will keep fighting for gender equality in Canada

Peterson: Is that the murderous equity doctrine @JustinTrudeau? — Baden

What does "murderous equity doctrine" even mean?

It's not even close to being ambiguous. — Baden

You're right. Peterson is asking whether Trudeau has in mind a certain doctrine of equity. It's this specific doctrine that is murderous.

and no official body in the US considers them so — Baden

I never said such a thing. However, the category of "black identity extremists" would include, in my opinion, BLM. And the BLM leaders and defenders themselves have interpreted this designation as directed at them, so my interpretation clearly isn't crazy.

E.g. Alex Jones — Baden

A broken clock is right two times a day. But this is a cheap shot and you know it. It's just the guilt by association fallacy.

And the BLM leaders and defenders themselves have interpreted this as directed at them, so my interpretation clearly isn't crazy. — Thorongil

This doesn't seem right. If I say something disparaging about "right-wing lunatics" on this forum then you might interpret this as a veiled attack on you, but it doesn't then follow that you're actually a right-wing lunatic. So that BLM leaders and defenders interpret "black identity extremists" as being directed at them, it doesn't then follow that they're actually black identity extremists.

What he actually said originally was:

[The Democrat party] has embraced groups like BLM, for example, which is a far left terrorist organization. — Thorongil

Obviously BLM don't consider themselves terrorists as they are not terrorists, and even more obviously it's childish and hysterical rhetoric to use. But Thorongil thinks it's fine when he and Alex Jones do it, but if the left uses inflammatory language they should be condemned.

I don't see anything hysterical about the three points you mentioned.

Your use of "women's equality" is a bit hand-wavey, though. That's like claiming that antifa can't be a terrorist organization because they call themselves "anti-fascist." The fact that a group of activists canvasses what they do as "women's equality" doesn't mean that what they're doing is good, and your uncritical acceptance of their self-imposed label worries me.

As to tinfoil, I see more of that from established media outlets than from independent pundits. For exampl, the Russia collusion nonsense, the claims of Austrian politics being infiltrated by "shadowy far-right fraternities," and several news outlets blaming the Mafia for the Italian elections. Whenever one of these populist political changes takes place, all of the sudden it's because of Russia or the Mafia or Austrian fraternities or whoever. What's next? Trump is a reptoid alien?

So that BLM leaders and defenders interpret "black identity extremists" as being directed at them, it doesn't then follow that they're actually black identity extremists. — Michael

Nor does appealing to what the organization considers itself to be entail that that is what it is, as @Baden has just done. I gave my own opinion, as I said.

I don't see anything hysterical about the three points you mentioned. — Pneumenon

Sure, you don't, because it's the right that did it. The rest of your post is kind of sad at best. It worries you that I think gender equality shouldn't be equated with a murderous equity doctrine? Because that is all I've said here despite your odd attempt at a strawman. Here's what it boils down to, I can admit to some hysterics on the left (@Erik did a good job giving examples) but you can't admit to that happening on the right even with blatantly obvious examples, and would prefer to distract with talk about hypothetical "reptoid aliens". Yawn. Same old boring tribal support mental block. Good luck with that.

When woof woof fails, reptoid aliens are clearly the next step.

And they speak of rhetoric.

Yes, you gave a paranoid hysterical opinion that rules you out of intelligent conversation with the other side. Congratulations on digging into your bunker. I'm sure even you will realize that accusing your opponents of supporting terrorism is not a route to productive conversation, so I presume that's not what you want.

Lots of adjectives, but little substantive engagement with the points I provided in support of my opinion. So be it.

Nor does appealing to what the organization considers itself to be entail that that is what it is, as Baden has just done. — Thorongil

OK, but I don't know what that has to do with my comment.

I gave my own opinion, as I said.

And I was just pointing out that that part of your defence of your opinion is a non sequitur.

What Is Contemporary Right-Wing Politics?

It's right here folks in all it's glory.



When you stop using childish and hysterical rhetoric (that would involve actually admitting you were wrong to call BLM terrorists—instead of trying to cover for it and then expect me to dignify that) I'll gladly engage. We'll see if that ever happens.

And I was just pointing out that that part of your defence of your opinion is a non sequitur. — Michael

Several things here. Even if the FBI did explicitly consider BLM to be a terrorist organization, that wouldn't necessarily mean it was one. I was not making the claim that the FBI's designations settle the matter. However, I use the fact that 1) "violent extremism" can be viewed as synonymous with "terrorism" and 2) that BLM people have reacted to said designation as being about them, as evidence that one, not necessarily the FBI (but who knows), may regard them as a terrorist organization.

Some quick personal examples include: getting blasted for pulling my younger son out of the public school system in favor of a charter school which takes an unconventional approach to education and child development; my wife being made to feel like a complete failure of a woman for choosing to prioritize our children over career goals (I did the same lest anyone assume ours isn't an equal relationship); getting mocked for expressing an openness to insights found in religions; being attacked by a mob (not literally) for white privilege because I criticized aspects of an article which demonized all white people as being incapable of anything other than racism, destruction, evil, etc. — Erik

Well I'm sorry you and your wife have had these experiences, but it remains unclear to me how these incidents have been extrapolated and constructed into modern tenets of the Democratic platform, e.g. that whites are incapable are anything other than evil etc., or that women must choose a career rather embrace motherhood.

It worries you that I think gender equality shouldn't be equated with a murderous equity doctrine? — Baden

No, my point was that calling yourself a "woman's equality" activist doesn't mean that what you are doing is good, or even that it has anything to do with equality; antifa, for example, call themselves anti-fascists, but really just engage in terrorism. Slapping a nice-sounding label on something does not make it a good thing, and I know you're not dumb enough to be fooled by that.

but you can't admit to that happening on the right even with blatantly obvious examples, and would prefer to distract with talk about hypothetical "reptoid aliens". Yawn. Same old boring tribal support mental block. — Baden

No, that remark was in reply to your assertion that there is more conspiracy theorism on the right than on the left. My reply cited three examples of widespread conspiracy theorism on the left.

Are you even reading my posts, Baden, or just skimming them and firing off a reply?

When you stop being using childish and hysterical rhetoric — Baden

Is it childish and hysterical rhetoric to call the white supremacist groups present in Charlottesville terrorist organizations, as I also did? I'm sure you could find spokesmen for the organizations claiming not to condone murder. Does that prove they aren't terrorist organizations?

You're the one playing the tribal game here, Baden.

However, I use the fact that 1) "violent" extremism" can be viewed as synonymous with "terrorism" and 2) the fact that BLM people have reacted to said designation as being about them, as evidence that one, not the FBI, may regard them as a terrorist organization. — Thorongil

And that's the non sequitur. That you might react to "right wing lunatic" isn't evidence that others may regard you as a right wing lunatic.

The distinction between sense and reference is important.

That you might react to "right wing lunatic" isn't evidence that others may regard you as a right wing lunatic. — Michael

But nor does it mean I'm not a right wing lunatic. Sometimes the shoe fits. I say it fits for other reasons provided above.

To recap: we have a widespread hysterical reaction on the left, where you've got some harmless middle-aged psych professor telling people to clean their rooms and grumbling about the social justice movement, and the reaction to him is to cast him as some kind of harbinger of fascism.

We have a stubborn refusal to recognize the violent extremism of groups like BLM and antifa, and pointing out the violent extremism of such groups immediately makes you the target of ridicule (sans argument). Also, there is a lot of conspiracy theorism about Trump being a Russian puppet, shadowy right-wing fraternities controlling Austria, and so forth.

Several times in this thread I have tried to coax some kind of argument out of SLX and Baden. But at one point I (gently) made fun of SLX by typing "woof woof" and he took that as a reason not to defend his position. Meanwhile, I also (gently) made fun of Baden with a reference to David Icke, and he decided that that meant he didn't need arguments to support his point. I'm a little disappointed, guys.

Show me where I said calling yourself a women's equality activist means what you are doing is good? Please quote me. As I said, strawman. We are not arguing over whether said activists are "good", we are arguing over whether "gender quality" can be legitimately referred to as "a murderous equity doctrine" and whether that kind of rhetoric can be considered "hysterical".

My reply cited three examples of widespread conspiracy theorism on the left. — Pneumenon

So these are (according to you) three examples of conspiracy theory on the left. Fine, but so what? We don't even have to argue over whether the left or the right is more unreasonable overall actually because it's not all that pertinent, and we're unlikely to agree. The point I'm focusing on is consistency. I have no problem describing those left-wing activists who shouted at JP that he was a "transphobic piece of shit", for example, as being hysterical and criticizing "my" side if you want to put it like that. But trying to get some quid pro quo is like pulling teeth.



And I was typing this you make your next purely rhetorical post. As if anyone is going to fall for any of it. Your audience is not a JP YouTube video stream. I mean, you are actually claiming if we don't admit BLM are "terrorists," though factually they are not, we are being "stubborn". And again, no recognition whatsoever of any fault on "your" side. Can you try to get there? At least once?

We have a stubborn refusal to recognize the violent extremism of groups like BLM — Pneumenon

Such as? The FBI report that @Thorongil referred to only has mention of 6 individuals engaged in "Black Identity Extremism" since 2014, and doesn't mention BLM at all. It does mention other groups like "BLA" and "Moorish Sovereign Citizens", though.

Probably the only thing this discussion will achieve is to show how foolish it is to throw the word "terrorism" around when you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

The trouble with a twitter movement is that it has an amorphous identity and a varied collection of individuals supporting it. There are undoubtedly violent extremists who take themselves to be in support of the BLM movement. We saw that with the Dallas and Louisiana shooters. You can find scores of people using the hashtag to express violent, racist sentiments.

If we look at the "official" organization, then I would again point to the influence of Assata Shakur on the BLM founders. Shakur was a member of the BLA, which you note the FBI singles out. I don't know what else to call her except a domestic terrorist, which is not a controversial statement, so that if BLM's intellectual and spiritual founder was a terrorist, then I don't know what else to call BLM except a terrorist organization.

You went from "she had an influence on their founders" to "she was their intellectual and spiritual founder" and she was a terrorist, therefore they are terrorists. The problem is, of course, the second one is a lie, which you just made up on the spot. And this after accusing me of peddling "guilt by association." Farcical. But, go on, it's instructive in some sense.

Hmm, let's see.

Sanctimonious? Check. Self-righteous? Check. Hectoring? Well, there's a limit to the extent to which it can reasonably be claimed blatant sarcasm is just gentle ribbing, and so...Check. Sectarian? Check. Maudlin? Well, expressions of self-pity and claims of sad disappointment probably qualify, and so...Check. Blustering? Well, certainly indignant, at least, and the use of uppercase can be said to be "loud", so...Check.

You're well on your way. Almost there.

Just some gentle fun on my part.

But, I think it's true overstatement and outrage permeate what passes as political discourse and debate in these dark times, and that is unfortunate, though sometimes outrage is appropriate.

Seeing as @Thorongil is now reduced to lying about BLM's history in an attempt to discredit them, here are the actual founders and links for anyone who wants to know more about them. (Hint: none of them are terrorists).

Alicia Garza (born January 4, 1981) is an African-American activist and editorial writer who lives in Oakland, California. She has organized around the issues of health, student services and rights, rights for domestic workers, ending police brutality, anti-racism, and violence against trans and gender non-conforming people of color. Her editorial writing has been published by The Guardian,The Nation, The Feminist Wire, Rolling Stone, HuffPost and Truthout. She currently directs Special Projects at the National Domestic Workers Alliance. Garza also co-founded the Black Lives Matter movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Garza

Patrisse Cullors (born 1984) is an African-American artist and activist from Los Angeles, an advocate for prison abolition in Los Angeles and co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement. She also identifies as a "queer activist".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrisse_Cullors

Opal Tometi is a New York-based Nigerian-American writer, strategist and community organizer. She is a co-founder of Black Lives Matter. She is the Executive Director at BAJI (Black Alliance for Just Immigration). Tometi collaborates with staff and communities in Los Angeles, Phoenix, New York City, Oakland, Washington D.C. and communities throughout the Southern states. Her work has been published by The Huffington Post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal_Tometi

The founder of Unite the Right and organizer of the Charlottesville protest, on the other hand, is Jason Kessler, who tweeted the following about the lady who his friends murdered.

""Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist. Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback time."

I hope most people can see the distinction here that goes over Thorongil's head.

The trouble with a twitter movement is that it has an amorphous identity and a varied collection of individuals supporting it. There are undoubtedly violent extremists who take themselves to be in support of the BLM movement. — Thorongil

Sure. And there are violent extremists who take themselves to be in support of Christianity. But it doesn't then follow that Christianity or the BLM movement are terrorist organizations.

If the organization were to define itself in terms of violence (or I guess if a critical mass of its supporters were to engage in or condone violence) then there would be a good case to label it terrorism, but I don't think that's the case here.

If we look at the "official" organization, then I would again point to the influence of Assata Shakur on the BLM founders. Shakur was a member of the BLA, which you note the FBI singles out. I don't know what else to call her except a domestic terrorist, which is not a controversial statement, so that if BLM's intellectual and spiritual founder was a terrorist, then I don't know what else to call BLM except a terrorist organization.

This has more standing, but I don't think because a co-founder praises Assata Shakur (although not necessarily for violence) that it would be right to tarnish the entire (decentralised) movement as being violent extremists. That's guilt by (a very loose) association.