You said I cannot trust your source unless it's backed up by a left-wing source. — Baden

No he didn't.

You need to go and read the preceding discussion.

To put it another way, would you consider news that came from a left-wing website that explicitly set out to attack the right reliable?
— Baden

Yes, in conjunction with right wing sources on the same topics. — Thorongil

Obviously the point of the question was to establish a principle we both abide by. i.e. if he would not accept my left-wing sources without corresponding right-wing sources, I should not accept his right-wing sources without corresponding left-wing ones. Understand? Thorongil, however, is a one way street.

Anyway, I'm happy to move on from this. It's a dead end.

Yikes, hard to wade through this with all the ad homs. I get it's sensitive material. But why is it? The actual topic of sources shouldn't be so sensitive that both sides are lashing out like this.

Which induces one to ponder just why you believe it not worth your time, if not because you think its claims are false. — Thorongil

Simply because I expect the ratio of time spent, to interesting, useful and reliable information learned, to be very low. It's the same time-allocation algorithm as most people I know use.

Why spend time reading an obviously biased source when I could be reading from a reliable, unbiased, informative one like bbc.co.uk or nasa. Why bury myself in the internet rants of an angry blogger when I could be finally learning what the deal is with quantum computers, or improving my german?

And don't complain about your evidence not being addressed. You posted a link to a rant website which, contrary to your suggestion, is not meticulously sourced at all. Nearly all of the hyperlinks backing strong opinions on the pages I looked at were either to pages on the same the site, or to fellow-travellling extremist sites or tabloid trash, like torontosun, frontpagemag or breitbart. Your evidence was addressed by that investigation and found completely wanting.

It is still open to you to post links to reports from reputable sources that support your fantastical claims about terrorism, should any such reports exist.

*Shrug* I didn't think it was too much to ask that a non-far right site be used as a source for an accusation of terrorism against a left-wing group. Horowitz is an Islamophobe at the very least (though I dealt with the information anyway). But, whatever, I'm happy to move on to a less controversial topic. It's not worth banging on about I suppose.

Yeah, constitutional Monarchy can be left-leaning. — Agustino

Not in France, at least not as of right now. Louis de Bourbon is a full-blown reactionary who excuses Franco, and a Spaniard to boot. No way in hell he's getting a crown, even the most hypothetical of crowns. Henry d'Orleans is an entitled ass who has nothing better to do with his time than to create yet another Very Holy and Very Distinguished Office of the Left Buttcheek of our Lady of Paris. Jean-Christophe Napoleon (or Napoleon VII) seems like the better choice between the three, but that's mostly because he doesn't seem to care about the throne at all.

Are you a legitimist, an orleanist or an imperialist?

I'm curious to know, given previous conversations that have taken place in this thread, what reactions the right-wing users in this forum have to the recent firing of Kevin D. Williamson by The Atlantic.

I wanna push some buttons so here is a recent New York Times article summarizing a recent study: Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...suggests that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

And an article that's more to the point: Conservatives Will Never Get the Respect They Crave. They Don’t Deserve It.

My previous question still stands.

Conservatives Will Never Get the Respect They Crave. They Don’t Deserve It. — Maw

No, clearly not. Who would ever think that? The only question is what to do with the poor bastards once the glorious revolution ushers in utopia. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. We shall have to decide, comrades.

An individual's social status and economic condition seem inextricable linked in this country, which makes the either/or scenario a bit odd. But I'll read the articles...

Second article was pretty uncharitable imo, full of hubris and caricatures and straw men, which is not quite what I'd expect from a writer who clearly fancies himself to be morally and intellectually superior to his ideological opponents.

I know this will sound like a platitude, but equally decent, intelligent, and well-intentioned people can have honest disagreements over guiding values, over the "common good," over the role government should be allowed to play in peoples' lives, over which economic policy is more conducive to meeting peoples' needs, over which needs should be prioritized, over whether a more centralized or decentralized system of governance is preferable, over how to balance individual rights with the community's needs, etc., etc., etc.

There are obviously some positions (e.g. proponents of slavery or genocide) that don't deserve a hearing, that no decent human being defends these days, but however much we may disagree with them I think it's hyperbole to place basic conservative ideas and values within that category, and this seems to have been the author's intent. Like if you hold those views you're not only wrong, you're evil. There's an oddly religious quality to this sort of thinking, going so far as to incorporate the "history is on our side" narrative which I erroneously assumed was suspect among progressives, at least of the postmodernist sort which he seemed to identify with in certain passages.

Be that as it may, I continue to be an economic progressive who largely agrees with his basic assessment of Republican greed, militarism, environmental indifference, etc. through the years, but I would also acknowledge that this is not the only conservative position imaginable, and that most people - on both sides of the political aisle - are more complex than self-righteous political propagandists (again on both sides) portray them to be within their narrow and dogmatic Manichean worldview.

And there you go, now I've just hypocritically reduced this group of political agitators to caricature, and I'm almost certain that most, if not all of them, would neither agree with nor appreciate it. What they typically do - create simplistic narratives - does seem to be a more effective strategy than one involving, say, the humanization of people who think differently, or seeking to understand why others think and feel the way they do, etc. So I can see why they do it, but that doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'll give it another read though lest it turns out that I'm the one who's being uncharitable. I would finally add that I hate it when conservatives engage in absurd caricatures and ridiculous distortions of progressives and their positions, too, and would prefer that they sincerely address the many strengths and achievements of the modern progressive movement(s).

No, clearly not. Who would ever think that? The only question is what to do with the poor bastards once the glorious revolution ushers in utopia. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. We shall have to decide, comrades. — Thorongil

Curious that you've repeated this mantra interminably, despite conservatives holding all three branches of Government. The article questions the respectfulness of modern conservative ideas. It isn't questioning whether conservatives should be respected as dignified humans, or that their fundamental human rights should be scrapped. It's this crass ignorance, this hasty hyperbole of gulags and "glorious revolution", that is so profoundly stupid as to warrant dismissal and derision.

Curious as to what is respectable with conservatism as practiced; that with the three branches under their control, conservatives have moved forward in sapping wealth away from the poor and middle class to the extreme upper echelons of society. They will further deplete needed social services in the name of balancing the deficit which they increased through tax cuts. They have split immigrant families, and gleefully dismantled regulations that protect the environment and curtail climate change.

despite conservatives holding all three branches of Government — Maw

:rofl:

What was that about crass ignorance and hasty hyperbole? Why, it's the sound of your own words flying through the air like a boomerang, smacking you in the face.

conservatives have moved forward in sapping wealth away from the poor and middle class to the extreme upper echelons of society. They will further deplete needed social services in the name of balancing the deficit which they increased through tax cuts. They have split immigrant families, and gleefully dismantled regulations that protect the environment and curtail climate change. — Maw

Yes, we conservatives are a bloodthirsty lot. For it is written in the fifth book of the conservative: "put under the ban everything the poor man and the immigrant has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys, regulations and air quality. Thus saith the CONSERVATIVE."

Amazing.

Here are some things that you will hear when you sit down to dinner with the vanguard of the Intellectual Dark Web: There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart. And we’re in a dangerous place if these ideas are considered “dark.”

This article caused quite a splash when it first appeared, and reactions have ranged from utter ridicule and derision to fanatic praise. While I doubt many, if any, of these people (which include Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, the digital magazine Quillette, Dave Rubin, Christina Sommers) have any meaningful impact in the Republican party, they are nevertheless extremely popular with hordes of mostly young, mostly male, mostly white, digital savvy demographics.