(01-22-2021 06:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have much time for extremism on either side.
Which mean you agree the these particular politicians warrant criticism.
(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]"The Squad" did a masterful job of attracting attacks that made it possible to label their attackers as sexist and racist.
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Sure, if you criticize the policies and offer sane alternatives.
(01-22-2021 07:57 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have much time for extremism on either side.
Which mean you agree the these particular politicians warrant criticism.
(01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]"The Squad" did a masterful job of attracting attacks that made it possible to label their attackers as sexist and racist.
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Sure, if you criticize the policies and offer sane alternatives.
Of course, the simplest and surest "alternative' to insane ideas is simply not to adopt the insane ideas.
Even so, the record seems to disprove your conditional: as the very post that started this thread tends to reveal, people are routinely labeled with -isms for doing EXACTLY what you suggest.
(01-22-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]"The Squad" did a masterful job of attracting attacks that made it possible to label their attackers as sexist and racist.
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Agree. I think Big's original post illustrates this.
The predilection to label dissenters as guilty of deviant -isms, together with the bewilderingly elastic and increasing variety of -isms, makes today's leftism one of the most sanctimoniously flimsy philosophies the world has ever seen.
(01-21-2021 11:59 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I have always been a little confused as to why many conservatives seem to hate AOC and the other squad members so much. NOT speaking of anyone around here, but I always thought part of it was because they were women of color. But beyond that ... 4 freshmen representatives have very little power in DC. AOC is super liberal ... but she represents a very liberal district, so isn’t that how democracy kind of works?
Now we have the conservative trio of Boebert, Greene, and Cawthorne that seem to garner a lot of headlines. I am curious about what people around here (across the political and ideological spectrum) think of them. It has recently come out that Greene supported the idea that the Parkland shooting was a false flag event among other things. Boebert and Greene have both posted some Qanon-supportive things. Cawthorne seems rambunctious and wants to dunk on the libs.
After thinking that conservatives were making way too much out of AOC and the Squad, I am a little surprised that I am so irritated by this new trio. Cawthorne doesn’t bother me quite as much since he doesn’t seem to be a conspiracy theorist.
I don't think skin color--or gender, for that matter--has much of anything to do with the dislike for AOC/Tlaib/Omar/Pressley. It's their radical ideas that people are incensed about.
One big difference I see. They may be freshmen representatives, but the democrats have given them a much bigger podium than first-termers typically get. I've seen no similar move by republicans to push Boebert, Greene, or Cawthorne into the limelight.
This is akin to an issue I've commented about on multiple occasions before. One fascist/white supremacist shows up at a republican event and it's like everybody there is a Nazi. And no matter how much republicans disavow those extremists, they are still painted with that brush over and over. But democrats can cozy up to the likes of BLM and Antifa and still have complete deniability. Not sure exactly how to classify it, but it's some kind of double standard.
I'll make you a deal. I will assume that you are as strongly anti-socialist/communist as I am anti-fascist/white supremacist. Therefore I will disavow fascists and white supremacists as strongly as you disavow socialists and communists, and we will each give the other full credit for those disavowals.
(01-22-2021 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]"The Squad" did a masterful job of attracting attacks that made it possible to label their attackers as sexist and racist.
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Agree. I think Big's original post illustrates this.
The predilection to label dissenters as guilty of deviant -isms, together with the bewilderingly elastic and increasing variety of -isms, makes today's leftism one of the most sanctimoniously flimsy philosophies the world has ever seen.
Kind of like the Trump wacko wing calling everyone they disagree with Communist/Marxist/Socialist.
(01-23-2021 12:59 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]"The Squad" did a masterful job of attracting attacks that made it possible to label their attackers as sexist and racist.
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Agree. I think Big's original post illustrates this.
The predilection to label dissenters as guilty of deviant -isms, together with the bewilderingly elastic and increasing variety of -isms, makes today's leftism one of the most sanctimoniously flimsy philosophies the world has ever seen.
Kind of like the Trump wacko wing calling everyone they disagree with Communist/Marxist/Socialist.
Bingo. I’ve been beating the drum of overlabeling liberal/progressive policies, and the dangers of it, on here for a while. Just as Dem’s having cried “racist” too frequently helped lead to Trump, Reps crying “communist” has completely diluted the meaning of the word and has helped to push an entire generation further left politically (since Reps are just seen as fear mongers that are a bit out of touch with reality and don’t offer solutions to any problems - well, besides tax cuts for the wealthy).
(01-22-2021 10:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2021 11:59 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I have always been a little confused as to why many conservatives seem to hate AOC and the other squad members so much. NOT speaking of anyone around here, but I always thought part of it was because they were women of color. But beyond that ... 4 freshmen representatives have very little power in DC. AOC is super liberal ... but she represents a very liberal district, so isn’t that how democracy kind of works?
Now we have the conservative trio of Boebert, Greene, and Cawthorne that seem to garner a lot of headlines. I am curious about what people around here (across the political and ideological spectrum) think of them. It has recently come out that Greene supported the idea that the Parkland shooting was a false flag event among other things. Boebert and Greene have both posted some Qanon-supportive things. Cawthorne seems rambunctious and wants to dunk on the libs.
After thinking that conservatives were making way too much out of AOC and the Squad, I am a little surprised that I am so irritated by this new trio. Cawthorne doesn’t bother me quite as much since he doesn’t seem to be a conspiracy theorist.
I don't think skin color--or gender, for that matter--has much of anything to do with the dislike for AOC/Tlaib/Omar/Pressley. It's their radical ideas that people are incensed about.
One big difference I see. They may be freshmen representatives, but the democrats have given them a much bigger podium than first-termers typically get. I've seen no similar move by republicans to push Boebert, Greene, or Cawthorne into the limelight.
This is akin to an issue I've commented about on multiple occasions before. One fascist/white supremacist shows up at a republican event and it's like everybody there is a Nazi. And no matter how much republicans disavow those extremists, they are still painted with that brush over and over. But democrats can cozy up to the likes of BLM and Antifa and still have complete deniability. Not sure exactly how to classify it, but it's some kind of double standard.
I'll make you a deal. I will assume that you are as strongly anti-socialist/communist as I am anti-fascist/white supremacist. Therefore I will disavow fascists and white supremacists as strongly as you disavow socialists and communists, and we will each give the other full credit for those disavowals.
When you say Democrats have given a bigger platform to AOC, what do you mean by that? Was she on important committees? Was she involved in specific legislative actions?
It’s seemed to me that she had mostly self-generated the attention, sometimes to the consternation of the party. Which is what those three Reps have done too.
(01-23-2021 12:59 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 12:47 PM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]"The Squad" did a masterful job of attracting attacks that made it possible to label their attackers as sexist and racist.
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Agree. I think Big's original post illustrates this.
The predilection to label dissenters as guilty of deviant -isms, together with the bewilderingly elastic and increasing variety of -isms, makes today's leftism one of the most sanctimoniously flimsy philosophies the world has ever seen.
Kind of like the Trump wacko wing calling everyone they disagree with Communist/Marxist/Socialist.
Only when one overlooks the very strong ties between progressivism and the combination of collectivism and reditributionism. Frankly said, without the call for collectivism and redistributionism, progressivism wouldn't be progressivism.
(01-23-2021 08:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2021 12:59 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (01-22-2021 06:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ][quote='georgewebb' pid='17236856' dateline='1611356429']
As a practical matter, are you sure it is possible to criticize those particular politicians without being so labeled?
Agree. I think Big's original post illustrates this.
The predilection to label dissenters as guilty of deviant -isms, together with the bewilderingly elastic and increasing variety of -isms, makes today's leftism one of the most sanctimoniously flimsy philosophies the world has ever seen.
Kind of like the Trump wacko wing calling everyone they disagree with Communist/Marxist/Socialist.
Well, many leftists call THEMSELVES socialists, including one who has been quite prominent in the twitter sphere this week.
And it is at least arguable that calling someone a communist or fascist, however absurd, is ultimately a hyperbolic policy criticism. The character denunciation to which the leftists are predisposed is in a somewhat different category.
But in general, yes: the leftist establishment and the Trump wacko wing are of similar intellectual honesty.
(01-23-2021 08:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Just as Dem’s having cried “racist” too frequently helped lead to Trump, Reps crying “communist” has completely diluted the meaning of the word...
Congratulations (again): your sensible reluctance to acquiesce in absurdly re-defining existing language is yet another example of how you are not, at heart, a progressive. :)
So the conservatives here have nary a bad word to say about Qanon supporters Boebert and Greene?
Boebert tried to merge some of our Quad threads yesterday by tweeting “I work for the people of Pueblo, not the people of Paris.” To which a local reporter pointed out that 4 years ago, Pueblo, CO had committed to 100% renewable energy, is home to the largest wind tower factory in the world, and the largest solar industrial project in the country. Does she have the capacity to feel shame at her own ignorance?
I think largely it is because many Democrats perceive the GOP as the party of racism and racists. Thus when I disagree with Maxine Waters, the perception is that it is because she is black and /or a woman and I am a racist/sexist, but when I disagree with Swawell, they cannot jump to that conclusion.
The socialists in Congress caucus with the Democrats. there must be a reason for that.
Bernie almost won the dem nomination. The must be a reason for that.
perhaps when the dems stop embracing the principle of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", they will no longer be considered socialists/communists. Tax the rich!
(01-23-2021 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]When you say Democrats have given a bigger platform to AOC, what do you mean by that? Was she on important committees? Was she involved in specific legislative actions?
It’s seemed to me that she had mostly self-generated the attention, sometimes to the consternation of the party. Which is what those three Reps have done too.
Committees: Oversight and Reform, Financial Services. Those both look like pretty big plums with lots of media face time for a rookie or second-termer.
And she and her fellow squad members have gotten plenty of media face time. If the powers in charge didn't want that to happen, it wouldn't.
And nobody has really opposed her on issues. It's just that she wants to push them faster than they want to go politically. I think she is merely saying what the leaders are thinking, but don't dare say because of the political fallout. She can say it, they have deniability, and in the district she represents it isn't going to hurt her.
(01-23-2021 10:36 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]So the conservatives here have nary a bad word to say about Qanon supporters Boebert and Greene?
Boebert tried to merge some of our Quad threads yesterday by tweeting “I work for the people of Pueblo, not the people of Paris.” To which a local reporter pointed out that 4 years ago, Pueblo, CO had committed to 100% renewable energy, is home to the largest wind tower factory in the world, and the largest solar industrial project in the country. Does she have the capacity to feel shame at her own ignorance?
Speaking for myself, I don't have any idea who these people are. The squad was glorified when they came to Congress by the Democrats to herald the diversity they brought,, and then AOC came up with her GND, which the democrats have embraced.
(01-23-2021 10:36 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]So the conservatives here have nary a bad word to say about Qanon supporters Boebert and Greene?
Heck, I didn't even know who they were until reading this thread. They are pretty obscure. Nor do I know who or what Quanon is.
And I don't know enough about them to know what bad words to say about them. I mean, I think I am considered pretty conservative, and I don't know enough about any of them to comment, so they clearly are nowhere near the mainstream of the right.
What I know--and care about--is what policy positions I support. And right now republicans are indifferent to them and democrats openly oppose most of them. And that tells me that unless republicans get on the stick, democrats and their policies are going to win out. And that will make this country a place where I will not want to live.
Big is so exercised over this Boebert, I decided to look her up.
lauren Beobert
My first thought was that her background was one that Democrats would crow about if she ran on their ticket - former welfare recipient, HS dropout, single mom, making it as a restaurant owner, first woman to represent her district (diversity!!!!).
But...no, she is a capitalist, and a gun rights advocate. quick, how many people have been shot in the obviously dangerous confines of her restaurant? My guess is zero.
As for the Quanon, according to this she has recanted. When a democrat such as Biden says something wrong, he is allowed to apologize or "clarify". Why is Big clinging to this Qunon thing?
Haven't looked up the others yet.
(01-23-2021 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Big is so exercised over this Boebert, I decided to look her up.
lauren Beobert
My first thought was that her background was one that Democrats would crow about if she ran on their ticket - former welfare recipient, HS dropout, single mom, making it as a restaurant owner, first woman to represent her district (diversity!!!!).
But...no, she is a capitalist, and a gun rights advocate. quick, how many people have been shot in the obviously dangerous confines of her restaurant? My guess is zero.
As for the Quanon, according to this she has recanted. When a democrat such as Biden says something wrong, he is allowed to apologize or "clarify". Why is Big clinging to this Qunon thing?
Haven't looked up the others yet.
Here's some background on Cawthorn. He is apparently on his way to becoming the flagbearer for a significant subset of the Republican party. Sounds like quite a guy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politi...ralympics/
(01-23-2021 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Big is so exercised over this Boebert, I decided to look her up.
lauren Beobert
My first thought was that her background was one that Democrats would crow about if she ran on their ticket - former welfare recipient, HS dropout, single mom, making it as a restaurant owner, first woman to represent her district (diversity!!!!).
But...no, she is a capitalist, and a gun rights advocate. quick, how many people have been shot in the obviously dangerous confines of her restaurant? My guess is zero.
As for the Quanon, according to this she has recanted. When a democrat such as Biden says something wrong, he is allowed to apologize or "clarify". Why is Big clinging to this Qunon thing?
Because Qanon is so bonkers-over-the-top-are-you-serious-crazy that it is staggering that a proponent (even former proponent if you believe this) of this conspiracy would be elected to national office.
(01-23-2021 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Big is so exercised over this Boebert, I decided to look her up.
lauren Beobert
My first thought was that her background was one that Democrats would crow about if she ran on their ticket - former welfare recipient, HS dropout, single mom, making it as a restaurant owner, first woman to represent her district (diversity!!!!).
I've been hearing quite a few Republicans bragging about how diverse their group of freshman congressmen/women are. I thought that kind of talk was reserved for the identity party? I'm confused.