But I'm sure Pneumenon and Thorongil would make just as much effort to find a positive way to construe a hysterical tweet made by someone on the left. Fair and balanced™.

But you invited that discussion by saying that there were more conspiracy theorists on the right. This is what puzzles me: when I make an argument, you respond that you're not interested in a discussion, despite the fact that I was addressing one of your points. — Pneumenon

I agreed to disagree with you on that point because it's not that important and your response was pretty much irrelevant anyway. Naming what you believe to be three conspiracy theories of the left doesn't demonstrate that there are more conspiracy theories on the left. I could point out that we don't have a left-wing version of Alex Jones or that Russian interference is not necessarily a conspiracy theory (we won't know the full facts until the investigation is complete). And so on. But it's not the salient part of the argument for me. The salient part is the part you completely ignored in your answer just now.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but this seems a bit exuberant in response to "woof woof." — Pneumenon

It's curious the way you repeatedly use this strategy of pretending to be disappointed and sorry and so on about the posts of your interlocutors here. And I suppose you'll respond to this comment by feigning more heartbreak. Here, have a hankie in advance. Or even better, just answer the rest of my earlier post. Nobody's interested in your emotional state.

Yeah, it's ambiguous enough to target a wide audience. :grin:

The Hamster's Guide to Good Sex.

It's hard for me to tune in to that but it jives well with a story Slavoj Zizek tells of going to a meeting where everyone was asked to introduce themselves and give details about their nationality, age, and...sexual orientation. That sounds cultish to me, but I guess it's more "culturish".

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.

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.

I learned a lot. You should write a book. :up:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, some of the reaction is a little hysterical, but not nearly as hysterical as foaming about women marching for equality as representing "murderousness" or calling BLM far left "terrorists" or worrying that the Dems are heading towards "communism". There's hysterical nuttiness on both sides I think you'll agree, but a few more tin-foil hat Alex-Jones types on the right as far as I can see. And this type of childish buzzword rhetoric just closes down debate. Peterson is as guilty of that as his opponents. (Lately at least—he used to be more sensible).

I suppose that's one of those Hanoverspasms you're so proud of, eh? Well, I promise you I'll do no crying until Thorongil and Buxtebuddha's wedding. Don't forget to wear white, ladies. ;)

Yes, that's me observing some recent posts on here.

Francis Bacon. :pray: :pray: :pray:

Lol. Ok.

:up:

Fair points. I've had some exhausting experiences debating creationists and the like and seen many others suffer the same fate, so my attitude is somewhat jaded.

Well, fine, you personally would be being consistent if you were OK with that. I am also being consistent by saying it's not for any religion to lay claim to the US, which is a secular state, so it seems like poor decorum and unnecessary to me for leaders to be exclusive in their use of language. Again, it's a matter of different attitudes to public decorum in the context of public officialdom. But I realize public officials are unlikely to be swayed by any argument that doesn't involve considerations of the ballot box.

Everything I get involved with lately seems to lead back to the group identity theme that came up the podcasts I mentioned recently.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-121-progress-rebroadcast/

https://soundcloud.com/youarenotsosmart/112-change-my-view-rebroadcast



You don't have to disbelieve in your particular god or pretend not to believe in it to keep it to yourself as a matter of politeness and consideration for those who don't believe in it. If an American Muslim was elected President and constantly said "Allah, who is great, bless America", the collective red states would have a collective heart attack and start reaching for their guns, so your argument falls apart very quickly.

Thank you. I am now officially "Good Cop". :up:

I didn't say there should be a law forcing them not to say that. I said they shouldn't say that. It's a moral not a legal point.

I never said anything that would suggest you shouldn't take action to change things to the extent you can. I merely said intentional bias towards one's own country is not a route to productive discussion with anyone outside that country. We're all full of unintentional biases, of course, but it seems sensible to try to mitigate them to the extent it's possible. And I would think that if we do have a duty towards our countries, it's exactly to call them out when we think they're wrong. As I said, it's not a ball game where we have to support the home team.

Then that violates the separation of church and state — Lone Wolf

Not saying "God bless America" violates the separation of church and state? How so?

I'm not from the UK not that it matters. Anyhow, the point is if someone's views are intentionally biased towards their own country, then there's little chance of a meeting of minds with anyone outside that country. Their audience is themselves and those in their country who agree with them.

I'm responsible for my country and what it does domestically and in the world — T Clark

To a degree but so what? That doesn't mean you have to defend it when it's wrong does it? That would be the height of irresponsibility.

Eh, the OP is about America. I answered it. And, no, freedom of speech is not "almost unrestricted" there in my view. There are cases in America where people face long jail terms for stuff they posted on FB. Mentioned one in a recent discussion.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/02/tech/social-media/facebook-threat-carter/index.html

So, where it matters, the US falls down and jails people for saying the wrong thing. That doesn't happen so much in Western Europe where common sense tends to prevail. Having said that, I'm not here to defend any particular country or continent. We're not at a ball game and it doesn't matter to me whether it's America or Europe doing the wrong thing. I've criticized my own country recently for its silly anti-blasphemy law, for example, (which is due to be canned very soon in any case).

So, country of origin is irrelevant. And I think on reflection you'll actually agree with me on that.

Fair point.

The point is that the President should represent everyone and therefore be neutral on gods. The majority of Americans are Christian, it's true, so it's a vote winner, but there is no state religion and a purposeful division between state and religion, so representatives of the state should not preference one religion over another.

Unfortunately, scientists have historically carried out gruesome experiments on humans that make this kind of thing look relatively mild. I think it's safe to assume pretty much everything has been tried (and will continue to be though some of it covertly to be sure).

The vast majority of the evidence seems to be on the side of interbreeding. E.g:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947341/ (Full paper)

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12961 (Abstract)

There is also this that mentions the other hypothesis but comes down on the side on intebreeding anyway:

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002947 (Full paper)

one professor during my university days said that given our genetic similarity it is nearly indisputable that one can have a human-chimp offspring, — javra

No, it's been tried and it didn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee



It does. E.g.:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

It makes me cringe every time I hear it, but American politicians do have to appear to be religious, and it works. That's politics over there. In most other developed countries, it would have the opposite effect of making voters reach for the sick bucket. As communications director Alistair Campbell helpfully interjected when Tony Blair almost made the faux pas of speaking about his personal religious beliefs to a magazine "We don't do God".

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's worse than just lying (and to the extent it is that, it's hard to tell) it's exclusive of those who have no truck with the Christian God, and that's a large and growing minority of Americans.

I think that shows your rigidity and lack of understanding rather than any fault in religious people. — T Clark

I'm not talking about religious people in general, I'm talking about religious people who maintain that their religious beliefs have a scientific grounding or who try to enforce their religious views re science in the education system, which can only result in mass levels of ignorance, and is a form of abuse as far as I'm concerned.

You can't separate science from the rest of society. — T Clark

I don't know exactly what you mean by this. On some level, it's trivially true, but science is the remit of scientists just like engineering is the remit of engineers. I'm not going to go tell an engineer how to build a bridge on the basis of my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and if I did, he shouldn't listen to me, or we'd have a lot more cars in rivers.

So, let's exclude a large portion of the electorate because we don't agree with their understanding of the world. — T Clark

It's not about agreement because there is no debate. The fact is that the Bible is not going to help in any way in understanding evolution. If you can't get that far, then you are not doing science to start with. You're still doing religion. So, yes, let's absolutely exclude them from this area because they have nothing of relevance to say. (In a conversation concerning morality, or theology or philosophy or even science if they are willing to keep religion out of it, that doesn't hold, of course).

There is no discussion here about what should be allowed on the forum. ProbablyTrue has expressed an interest in interacting with these troglodytes you have such disdain for. Maybe evolution denial is not welcome here, but how to talk to evolution deniers and how to understand what we think is true about evolution should be. — T Clark

I'm just making it clear that we don't want pseudoscience (e.g. so called "ID" or creation science) in the science category. I'm not referring to anyone here, specifically, religious or otherwise. There are lots of ways to criticize evolutionary theory without going that route. We're not at the end of the road with evolution, we simply have a theory, which can and should be criticized, but not on the basis that it contradicts some group's holy book. That's just not the right way to go about things in this field.

You have summarized many of the thoughts I had in mind. — Thorongil

But Erik said:

I think the distinction is that Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally while simultaneously moving to the right on economic issues. — Erik

Whereas you called the Dems "far left" and say they have moved "very far" to the left socially. You're not saying the same thing at all as far as I can see. There is a difference between moving "more and more" to the left socially, which is apparent with the Dems support for gay marriage and so on, and moving "far left." There is no policy I know of on which the Dems are currently far left. And the real far left in America (who do exist though they get no platform there) are absolutely opposed to the Dems on almost every issue you could mention. But most likely we have a different conception of what counts as "far left". Feel free to list the policies you're speaking of.

Economically, Clinton... — Thorongil

...was on the right in other words, which is why Wall St. was throwing so much money her way, as they did Obama, who got more in Wall St. donations than both Romney and McCain. Wall St. are not in the habit of supporting the left, obviously (to underline the point you seem to have conceded anyway in this sphere).

With regards to healthcare, Clinton, by not supporting universal healthcare, was to the right of every European conservative party, and only to the left of Republicans. And still, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi doesn't support it nor do the majority of Senate Democrats (although it's becoming more popular).

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/12/16293016/sanders-single-payer-health-care

That poll gives 25% of senate Dems in favour. The numbers may have increased a bit in the past six months, but again we're talking here about a policy that even the extreme right support in Europe, so certainly nothing left-wing about the Dems position on this.

Military policy? Hard to identify what would count as left and right here seeing as both interventionism and isolationism could be considered right-wing. Certainly, Clinton was hawkish and, to take policy towards Israel as an example, all parties are on the right.

Spending? Both parties are now big spenders, happily and cynically ballooning the debt to buy votes. Sure, the Dems will favour social security and the Republicans the military, but social security payments while representing a large part of the budget are still lower on the whole than in Europe.

Taxes? Neither party espouses a highest tax rate of more than 50%, as is routine in social democratic Europe, so nothing left-wing to be found here either.

So what policy can we find on which the Dems are uncontroversially left-wing not to mention "far left"? Abortion? Sanders does appear to be far left on this (no interference with what a woman wants to do with her body) and a proportion of his followers are, but not the Dems on the whole, who support the status quo. Gay marriage? That's a centrist position globally now though I suppose we could call it left-wing at a stretch. Anything else, specifically?

Tbh, I suspect the term "far left" when used in the context of US politics is mostly meaningless hyperbole of the type Fox News commentators and their ilk use to scare conservatives away from any policy they disagree with no matter how moderate it is. As I said, the left (e.g. the Green Party) and the far left (e.g. Socialist Party USA) do exist in America, but when you label moderates like the Dems "far left" the consciousness of anything left of them easily disappears. And that's hardly accidental nor is the fact that the Greens and Socialists are given no media platform over there.

Anyway, I'll leave you with a radical super-far-loony-left idea of the Socialist Party USA:

Let's create a:

""radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control—a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society [...] where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few"

Shocking, eh...?

It's no more rigid or reductionist to ignore the talking-snake crowd than it is to ignore the flat-earth crowd when it comes to science. They have zero to bring to the table and indulging them serves no purpose. And maybe you have to live next door to them, but most of us don't. In terms of developed countries, they're almost exclusively an American phenomenon. That being the case, you should know that what really warps an understanding of science, and can potentially destroy it, especially among the young, is giving these people a platform that leads to political influence, particularly over educational policy. They won't be given a similar platform here in the science category to spread pseudoscientific nonsense. Again, that has nothing to do with scientism or scientific reductionism. Philosophy and science itself are perfectly valid means to criticize the prevailing scientific orthodoxy.