Per Michael Dougherty with the National Review:

Quote:Most of the debate about Confederate monuments after Charlottesville has been a distraction. The rally organizers came prepared for violence, and they wanted it. They wanted footage of themselves getting punched and maced so that they could use conservative antipathy to Antifa to erode conservative antipathy to ActualFascists. Don’t fall for it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/45...servatives

(08-17-2017 07:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 06:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So again, in the end it was about getting the percentage wrong. That's fine that y'all feel that way, that you would have preferred a more accurate and nuanced statement from Clinton regarding the amount of vile people that represent Trump, but stop giving me the runaround and just say that flat out.

Tanq, I do agree that Trump has helped illuminate greatly the issue on the left of too often and quickly taking a misspoken statement and applying a tag to the person that doesn't fit (hellloooo "binders full of women"). Or reading too much into certain policy preferences.

you misread lad. it isnt about proportions. it is about letting the mask slip about what was typically said about candidates and revealing the underlying contempt of supporters of the candidate.

let me interpret. (some non-negligible proportion) are deplorables (a pretty fing harsh term). the rest (who seem to be too fing stupid to notice the candidate has support of deplorables) are otherwise allright. illuminating a significant amount of deplorables is an enormous implied insult to the rest.

imagine if a republican said 'half of obamas voters are fing wefare leeches. the rest are okay."

with all the gnashing of being tone deaf and 'implications' of what is said all the time i dont quite understand why the statement is such a mystery....

Again, what you're boiling it down to is the proportions were off. I understand that issue and why that's a concern. If what I just stated isn't true about why that statement bothered so many, than what other explanation is there?

This weekend demonstrated that those deplorable are not a myth.

not proprtions at all. try 'obama attracts welfare leeches as voters. the rest are too fing stupid to notice".

get off your 'only proportions' high horse. the statement is overtly contemptible of the former group, and impliedly contemptible of the second.

and to be blunt im not here to fing argue 'why' i find that statement wrong on a lot of levels. i told you. take it at face value or not.

second, i find it somewhat astonishing that people who diagnose every trump implied nuance or omission or dog whistle dont find that statement offensive to both groups mentioned.

And I wasn't here either to argue proportions. My original question was how do we discuss this issue (the very active support of a candidate by hate groups) in the future?

Your response indicates that we can't.

To be blunt, at least for me, the Rubicon was crossed.

The left, in their own cute smug condescending way, has become as much intolerant f-cks as the bible thumpers and other 'clingers' they rail on.

To be blunt, I can probably have a more balanced discussion and less condescending response to a talk about abortion (I am pro-choice, with limits) and creationism (in the Dawkins camp) with supposed asshat religious right clergyman than I can about First Amendment rights with progs these days. And this isnt a "probably", this is in fact a fact (actually multiple times all in the last two weeks).

Obama's comments about guns, bibles and intolerance should definitely be added to your list of exemplars, Lad. But you also realize with the Obama comment, he isnt even parsing out "good people" and joining them at the hip with "deplorables like Hills, he just pretty much calls out any group person that is so mind addled as to disagree with him as such clingers and (pretty much) explicitly as redneck, bible thumper, gun-toting bigots. How can you *not* call that offputting and world class condescension? From the lips of a commander in chief mind you....

Is Trump a proper antidote? To me it is replacing one f-cksh-t attitude of the left with an equally f-cksh-t attitude from our current populist-in-chief. But of course since I dont toe the "left violence is good; violence from pinhead supremacist f-cks bad" mantra these days, well that gets read as "there was only antifa violence" and "Im a racist trump stooge".

And the funny thing is that one of the a-s tool supremacists I alluded to that I got to know when working offshore got into contact with me the other day -- and I actually had a more reasoned talk with him about the idiocy of their identity politics than quite frankly most progs have shown in the last 20 years in personal conversations about *their* worldview on *their* special brand of identity politics. Not defending his f-cked up view, but just making a comment about tenor.

Yeah, Im just going to say at this point I think this country is seriously f-cked (perhaps irretrievably) because of breadth and depth of divides. First time in my life I have felt this way.

(08-18-2017 10:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 07:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 06:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  you misread lad. it isnt about proportions. it is about letting the mask slip about what was typically said about candidates and revealing the underlying contempt of supporters of the candidate.

let me interpret. (some non-negligible proportion) are deplorables (a pretty fing harsh term). the rest (who seem to be too fing stupid to notice the candidate has support of deplorables) are otherwise allright. illuminating a significant amount of deplorables is an enormous implied insult to the rest.

imagine if a republican said 'half of obamas voters are fing wefare leeches. the rest are okay."

with all the gnashing of being tone deaf and 'implications' of what is said all the time i dont quite understand why the statement is such a mystery....

Again, what you're boiling it down to is the proportions were off. I understand that issue and why that's a concern. If what I just stated isn't true about why that statement bothered so many, than what other explanation is there?

This weekend demonstrated that those deplorable are not a myth.

not proprtions at all. try 'obama attracts welfare leeches as voters. the rest are too fing stupid to notice".

get off your 'only proportions' high horse. the statement is overtly contemptible of the former group, and impliedly contemptible of the second.

and to be blunt im not here to fing argue 'why' i find that statement wrong on a lot of levels. i told you. take it at face value or not.

second, i find it somewhat astonishing that people who diagnose every trump implied nuance or omission or dog whistle dont find that statement offensive to both groups mentioned.

And I wasn't here either to argue proportions. My original question was how do we discuss this issue (the very active support of a candidate by hate groups) in the future?

Your response indicates that we can't.

To be blunt, at least for me, the Rubicon was crossed.

The left, in their own cute smug condescending way, has become as much intolerant f-cks as the bible thumpers and other 'clingers' they rail on.

To be blunt, I can probably have a more balanced discussion and less condescending response to a talk about abortion (I am pro-choice, with limits) and creationism (in the Dawkins camp) with supposed asshat religious right clergyman than I can about First Amendment rights with progs these days. And this isnt a "probably", this is in fact a fact (actually multiple times all in the last two weeks).

Obama's comments about guns, bibles and intolerance should definitely be added to your list of exemplars, Lad. But you also realize with the Obama comment, he isnt even parsing out "good people" and joining them at the hip with "deplorables like Hills, he just pretty much calls out any group person that is so mind addled as to disagree with him as such clingers and (pretty much) explicitly as redneck, bible thumper, gun-toting bigots. How can you *not* call that offputting and world class condescension? From the lips of a commander in chief mind you....

Is Trump a proper antidote? To me it is replacing one f-cksh-t attitude of the left with an equally f-cksh-t attitude from our current populist-in-chief. But of course since I dont toe the "left violence is good; violence from pinhead supremacist f-cks bad" mantra these days, well that gets read as "there was only antifa violence" and "Im a racist trump stooge".

And the funny thing is that one of the a-s tool supremacists I alluded to that I got to know when working offshore got into contact with me the other day -- and I actually had a more reasoned talk with him about the idiocy of their identity politics than quite frankly most progs have shown in the last 20 years in personal conversations about *their* worldview on *their* special brand of identity politics. Not defending his f-cked up view, but just making a comment about tenor.

Yeah, Im just going to say at this point I think this country is seriously f-cked (perhaps irretrievably) because of breadth and depth of divides. First time in my life I have felt this way.

So when did I say that was not offputting?

Sorry Tanq, your responses are normally pretty measured, but this one is leaving me at a loss for how to respond.

Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

Bannon is out

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

Respectfully, I don't think that's what's going on here. I think there is a conflation of issues and some confusion that is leading to that, perhaps. I stated before that I understand why Hillary's comment about deplorables could anger or offend those on the right, and that it was how personally people took it that was confusing me at first (and that still does). However, my original line of questioning focused on the white supremacists that led the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and my comments were solely about them, which you (and potentially others) thought could be condescending. I don't think calling out actual avowed racists as such is condescending.

I agree that your proposition could help move things forward. I think what is even more important would be for both sides to not view either as part of their side. I think that is what leads to people defending/attacking them. We also need to be able to recognize that while groups of people may do detestable things, there are varying degrees of detestability that cannot be equalized.

For example, it should be clear that the white supremacists in Charlottesville were more dangerous and detestable than the Antifa there, if anything, because the white supremacists openly advocate hate, while the Antifa do not. Yes, they both used violence to try and intimidate the other and stop the other from voicing their opinions, so if we call that a wash, what is the overarching goal of each group? One is to advocate for the superiority of whites and denigrate Jews, blacks, etc. The other is to, as they would probably put it, punch Nazis. Is it really not clear which of those is less worse?

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. extreme positions that leaves no fing room for discussion *and* extreme actors and statements that close the door on discourse As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my extreme positions that I refuse to talk about without giving an inch, including violen[ce] by my sides' extremists in pursuit of what I might consider 'justice' if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirable[] people and issues relating to their opponents on its side, but [b] fundamentally unwilling either not willing to admit its own bad actions, bad statements, and bad people. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

+1, but I would actually modify 69's statements to be broader. The intolerance on both sides of the divide have gotten to the point where I am actually afraid that rhetoric to 'band yours together' is far more powerful than the want for discourse.

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

"I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views."

But how do you think it comes across when we keep getting called "leftists" and "progs" and someone calls President Obama "a condescending ass****" ?

(08-18-2017 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

Respectfully, I don't think that's what's going on here. I think there is a conflation of issues and some confusion that is leading to that, perhaps. I stated before that I understand why Hillary's comment about deplorables could anger or offend those on the right, and that it was how personally people took it that was confusing me at first (and that still does). However, my original line of questioning focused on the white supremacists that led the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, and my comments were solely about them, which you (and potentially others) thought could be condescending. I don't think calling out actual avowed racists as such is condescending.

I agree that your proposition could help move things forward. I think what is even more important would be for both sides to not view either as part of their side. I think that is what leads to people defending/attacking them. We also need to be able to recognize that while groups of people may do detestable things, there are varying degrees of detestability that cannot be equalized.

For example, it should be clear that the white supremacists in Charlottesville were more dangerous and detestable than the Antifa there, if anything, because the white supremacists openly advocate hate, while the Antifa do not. Yes, they both used violence to try and intimidate the other and stop the other from voicing their opinions, so if we call that a wash, what is the overarching goal of each group? One is to advocate for the superiority of whites and denigrate Jews, blacks, etc. The other is to, as they would probably put it, punch Nazis. Is it really not clear which of those is less worse?

First, both prongs are pretty fing disgusting, unless you advocate for viewpoint-based disparate treatment. Good for you, we know where you stand. Not meaning that in a denigrating manner that it may sound like.

I cant advocate 'punching the f-ck' out of Nazis for merely speaking any more than I can advocate 'punching out any (name your your punching bag group) for merely speaking their beliefs.' Guess I am a redneck ignorant gun-toting retard for being a 1st amendment absolutist. So be it.

Second -- Lad, since we know that you consider the punching of nazis a far better moral plane than their admittedly transmitting a vile message, where in the Lad-Universe *is* the line for protected speech that *is* above a baseball bat to the face? Obviously there is some 'line' for you existing *north* of "Kikes arent welcome" and "Get out n-ggers", but obviously well south of a Mother Theresa kumbaya message, so I would really be interested in *where* this line exists for you? And especially why? And do give me any of the b-llsh-t "I know it when I see it" that characterizes the absolute lowpoint of Justice Stewart's analysis skills. Im not looking for a regurgitation of (nazi talk < right not to be punched), you have made that absolutely clear where those lie on your moral plane. I am looking for *what the f-ck* that line *is* as opposed to a moral rule by example of a single class.

And what objective measure wold you use to enforce this? And what (objective or subjective) measure makes you fundamentally sure that this is the *correct* line, especially when you decide to re-read both the background and the intent of the free speech clauses of the First Amendment?

Now you do fully realize when you draw this line, with fair warning I *will* be telling you 'what a wonderful self-arbitrary (and potentially self-righteous) line you have drawn for the world *and* for everybody else living in Lad-World.' So I wont be a *complete* dick and bait you into answering that question blindly the way I would for most. Notwithstanding I would like to see some answer justifying *any* viewpoint-only-based disparate treatment that you seem to be onboard with.

(08-18-2017 12:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  But how do you think it comes across when we keep being called "leftists" and "progs" and someone calls President Obama "a condescending ass****" ?

I would guess that it would piss you off if you don't agree with those positions. One thing for sure, if it did piss you off, I wouldn't be still expressing surprise that it did, almost a year later. That's my point, is that Hillary and those on the left have made similar comments about republicans/those on the right/those who voted for Trump, and yet don't understand why that pissed them off.

The other thing is that as long as those were my beliefs, then I wouldn't care whether they pissed you off or not. I'm not trying to get you to vote for me for president, so I don't need you to like me. Hillary was, so she did need them.

As for the specific comments, I don't think I've used "progs" because I don't like the term. I prefer "leftists" to liberals because "liberal" to me means classical liberal, and I want to differentiate leftists from that. I'm sure I've called Obama a "smug, arrogant, condescending socialist/communist *******" a few times, because quite frankly that is my opinion of him.

(08-18-2017 01:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Second -- Lad, since we know that you consider the punching of nazis a far better moral plane than their admittedly transmitting a vile message, where in the Lad-Universe *is* the line for protected speech that doesnt warrant a baseball bat to the face? Obviously there is some 'line' *north* of "Kikes arent welcome" and "Get out n-ggers", but obviously well south of a Mother Theresa kumbaya message, so I would really be interested in *where* this line exists for you? And also, why the left is so adamant about such a content-based moral line?

And while you are drawing that vileness line, please indicate on which side of the line you would put comments like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now."

(08-18-2017 12:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

"I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views."

But how do you think it comes across when we keep getting called "leftists" and "progs" and someone calls President Obama "a condescending ass****" ?

Historically liberals and progressives (and there is a difference) have been called the 'left' (for more than a century is my guess). Is there a problem with that? Do you have the same knee-jerk when conservatives are called "rightists"? I certainly don't.

I guess "repubs" is bad for you as well if we are getting into "shortening the name is bad form" territory. Glad to know that one should never shorten a name....

Is 'liberal" off the table as well? How about libs?

As for calling Obama a "condescending (my expletive was deleted so you didnt make it pass the CNS censor)", the final portion is over the top. Perhaps you should dust off the history books to the world of fun things that Shrub was called.

And, with all due respect, I would hope that the person who labeled pretty much anyone who disagreed with him as gun-toting, redneck, ignorant clinging people, I would sincerely hope he doesnt have the churlishness to be be upset at those same gun-toting, redneck, ignorant clinging people to respond in kind.

I would hope the same for Trump, but, nah, [redneck mode enabled] he dont have it nayther[/redneck mode]

I've never called anyone a rightest.
I don't mind being called to the left or a liberal or a progressive (though I would call myself more to the center).

And on the scale of offensiveness, being called leftist or prog are on the low end.
But it's still annoying, especially when it seems to be done to be annoying. I still
want to dope slap Newt Gingrich every time I think of him calling Patricia Schroeder
Patsy from the Democrat party.

(08-18-2017 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Second -- Lad, since we know that you consider the punching of nazis a far better moral plane than their admittedly transmitting a vile message, where in the Lad-Universe *is* the line for protected speech that doesnt warrant a baseball bat to the face? Obviously there is some 'line' *north* of "Kikes arent welcome" and "Get out n-ggers", but obviously well south of a Mother Theresa kumbaya message, so I would really be interested in *where* this line exists for you? And also, why the left is so adamant about such a content-based moral line?

And while you are drawing that vileness line, please indicate on which side of the line you would put comments like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now."

Those individuals are on the same side as the Nazis and white supremacists.

And I know where you're going with that. There was a reason I specifically talked about what the GROUPS advocate for, and not what individuals within the group say or do. Almost any group will have a few bad apples, and because of that, what the group actually stands for can be very important.

I would say that I would draw the vileness line at a point where people are advocating violence against, persecution against, or denigrating others because of features they have no control over (race, sex, sexuality, etc.). However, I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand.

Tanq and others keep trying to make this a black and white issue, a clear right and wrong issue where you are on one side or the other. Like most things there is a gradient. Heck, I EXPLICITLY stated that when comparing Antifa to Nazis, one is LESS worse. I don't get how someone could argue against that. That Antifa, as we know them, are exactly equal to Nazis and white supremacists.

(08-18-2017 12:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

"I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views."

But how do you think it comes across when we keep getting called "leftists" and "progs" and someone calls President Obama "a condescending ass****" ?

Ha, that's what I've been thinking through so many posts on this thread. I see so many posts in my facebook feed condemning "libtards" or "urban elites" as opposed to "real Americans". My favorite is "snowflakes," quite often used by the same people who had a fit last year about Starbucks NOT having snowflakes on a coffee cup. I guess there are "deplorable" *and* "very fine" snowflakes.

(08-18-2017 01:45 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 12:44 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad,

I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views. I think that was Hillary's and the democrats' problem in 2016. To you it does not seem condescending or arrogant or snide. To others, it does. If you're willing to keep doing that, then you are going to drive away a lot of what used to be your bread and butter voters. If you want them back, you need to chart a different course. You can do with that what you will.

As for how to talk about it, I've given that some thought, and what I think needs to be done is that both sides have to admit that they have violent extremists. As far as despicable ideologies, those on one side may have ties to fascism, those on the other may have ties to communism. What I think needs to happen is for both sides to say, OK, I'm willing to talk about my violent extremists if you're willing to talk about yours. Put it all out on the table. Right now, each side is very willing to point its fingers at the undesirables on its side, but not willing to admit its own. And that can only ratchet up to more and more division if we continue to pursue that course.

I don't know another way to do it. Do you?

"I think what is going on here is that you don't really comprehend how some of this comes across to people who do not agree with your views."

But how do you think it comes across when we keep getting called "leftists" and "progs" and someone calls President Obama "a condescending ass****" ?

Ha, that's what I've been thinking through so many posts on this thread. I see so many posts in my facebook feed condemning "libtards" or "urban elites" as opposed to "real Americans". My favorite is "snowflakes," quite often used by the same people who had a fit last year about Starbucks NOT having snowflakes on a coffee cup. I guess there are "deplorable" *and* "very fine" snowflakes.

Speaking his mind won Trump the election and speaking her mind cost Hillary.

(08-18-2017 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Those individuals are on the same side as the Nazis and white supremacists.

OK, so we are in agreement on that.

Quote:And I know where you're going with that. There was a reason I specifically talked about what the GROUPS advocate for, and not what individuals within the group say or do. Almost any group will have a few bad apples, and because of that, what the group actually stands for can be very important.

When you have large numbers of claiming to be members of a group and chanting things like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now," and the group does not officially repudiate those statements, then I think it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to attribute those statements to the group. After all, what is a group more than its members? Is it some sort of being that is totally divorced from the conduct of its members? If you want to argue that, then one individual--who may or may not have been a member of the group--committed homicide by vehicle on Saturday. Is it reasonable to attribute the behavior of one individual to the group? For the record, I would say yes in this case because the group created the situation where it was reasonable foreseeable that something like this could and would happen. I'd put the Ferguson marches and the slaying of the Dallas police officers into that same category. I try to apply the same standard across the board.

Quote:I would say that I would draw the vileness line at a point where people are advocating violence against, persecution against, or denigrating others because of features they have no control over (race, sex, sexuality, etc.). However, I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand.

OK, so we are in agreement on that.

Quote:Tanq and others keep trying to make this a black and white issue, a clear right and wrong issue where you are on one side or the other. Like most things there is a gradient. Heck, I EXPLICITLY stated that when comparing Antifa to Nazis, one is LESS worse. I don't get how someone could argue against that. That Antifa, as we know them, are exactly equal to Nazis and white supremacists.

You might rethink your wording there because it is a bit confusing. Are you saying that Antifa is not as bad as white supremacists? And what is the significance of that? Does it somehow make Antifa okay because they are "not as bad as" what may be the worst group of humans on earth? I'd say that are both bad enough that degrees of badness is sort of like degrees of virginity in a whorehouse.

(08-18-2017 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Those individuals are on the same side as the Nazis and white supremacists.

OK, so we are in agreement on that.

Quote:And I know where you're going with that. There was a reason I specifically talked about what the GROUPS advocate for, and not what individuals within the group say or do. Almost any group will have a few bad apples, and because of that, what the group actually stands for can be very important.

When you have large numbers of claiming to be members of a group and chanting things like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now," and the group does not officially repudiate those statements, then I think it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to attribute those statements to the group. After all, what is a group more than its members? Is it some sort of being that is totally divorced from the conduct of its members? If you want to argue that, then one individual--who may or may not have been a member of the group--committed homicide by vehicle on Saturday. Is it reasonable to attribute the behavior of one individual to the group? For the record, I would say yes in this case because the group created the situation where it was reasonable foreseeable that something like this could and would happen. I'd put the Ferguson marches and the slaying of the Dallas police officers into that same category. I try to apply the same standard across the board.

Quote:I would say that I would draw the vileness line at a point where people are advocating violence against, persecution against, or denigrating others because of features they have no control over (race, sex, sexuality, etc.). However, I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand.

OK, so we are in agreement on that.

Quote:Tanq and others keep trying to make this a black and white issue, a clear right and wrong issue where you are on one side or the other. Like most things there is a gradient. Heck, I EXPLICITLY stated that when comparing Antifa to Nazis, one is LESS worse. I don't get how someone could argue against that. That Antifa, as we know them, are exactly equal to Nazis and white supremacists.

You might rethink your wording there because it is a bit confusing. Are you saying that Antifa is not as bad as white supremacists? And what is the significance of that? Does it somehow make Antifa okay because they are "not as bad as" what may be the worst group of humans on earth? I'd say that are both bad enough that degrees of badness is sort of like degrees of virginity in a whorehouse.

To the bold - what group are you putting those people in? Your answer will greatly affect my response.

And to the last item, yes, I am saying that Antifa is not as bad as white supremacists. I'm only talking about that due to what seems like a need to try and create a balance around the Charlottesville protests between the "left" and "right" or the white supremacists and the counter-protesters. It's because of what I perceive as the need to try and equally condemn both that it should be pointed out that one group deserves to draw far more ire and condemnation than the other.

(08-18-2017 12:02 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Bannon is out

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-has-d...ite-house/

(08-18-2017 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Second -- Lad, since we know that you consider the punching of nazis a far better moral plane than their admittedly transmitting a vile message, where in the Lad-Universe *is* the line for protected speech that doesnt warrant a baseball bat to the face? Obviously there is some 'line' *north* of "Kikes arent welcome" and "Get out n-ggers", but obviously well south of a Mother Theresa kumbaya message, so I would really be interested in *where* this line exists for you? And also, why the left is so adamant about such a content-based moral line?

And while you are drawing that vileness line, please indicate on which side of the line you would put comments like, "What do we want? Dead cops. When to we want them? Now."

Those individuals are on the same side as the Nazis and white supremacists.

And I know where you're going with that. There was a reason I specifically talked about what the GROUPS advocate for, and not what individuals within the group say or do. Almost any group will have a few bad apples, and because of that, what the group actually stands for can be very important.

I would say that I would draw the vileness line at a point where people are advocating violence against, persecution against, or denigrating others because of features they have no control over (race, sex, sexuality, etc.). However, I'm not trying to draw a line in the sand.

But yet you have. Otherwise you are simply repeating the crap line of Justice Stewart of "I know it when I see it" in a flashier style (albeit with far less backbone). It is either a line or it isnt. 'Just an idea of a direction' really doesnt cut it in this discussion for me. Hate to tell you I am not the one making the major moral distinction between shitbag antifas and shitbag nazis. Apparently your 'just an idea for a direction' doesnt include shutting down free expression. Tell us, what other rights embodied in the Constitution dont make your 'idea for a direction'?

If someone starts yelling 'you fing shitlord Baptists', that won't make your 'vile line' will it? How about "k-ke" (tough call in lad-world, refers to ancestry (maybe), or religion (maybe), but not necessarily race (unless you subscribe to the odious ideals of 'race' that South Africa, and Germany held in common at various points)? Looks like we found a wee flaw in the 'just an idea for a direction' since the main target of these dudes can be Jews, which aren't sex, sexuality, or race. SO the great idea is to 'expand' that list, right? Well, how *much* farther do we expand that list in a reasonable manner then? I mean, even in your obvious 'general direction' you left a hole that left out one of the groups being chanted against Friday and Saturday past....

Turning aside from the problematic issues of subjectivity and mission creep existant in your 'rules', lets just examine the basic structure of that outcome.

Is this a proper logical relationship for your viewpoint, Lad? Correct me if I am wrong....
Punch to the face == punch to the face.
Punch to the face < Punch to the face with additional subjective 'mean talk'

In other words punch to the face by a 'bad guy who may have at one point in the past said something that might be mean to somebody, somewhere' overrides punch to the face. Got it. Awesome objective standard you have going there. (told you that line was coming...)

Additionally that works as a awesomely convenient great crutch to buttress the times when the crap actors on your side bust chops with the bad actors that you dont agree with, doesnt it? Problem is that most use that 'vindication' factor in precisely that manner. Some are actually at the point of equating Antifa with US servicemen using this crutch.

So my deplorables busted chops with your deplorables. Easy call. Those other guys said something 'mean-spirited' (whatever the **** that means, and to whomever the **** it should be applied to) previously, so my a-sholes are sooooo obviously much better. All the difference....

Quote:Tanq and others keep trying to make this a black and white issue, a clear right and wrong issue where you are on one side or the other. Like most things there is a gradient. Heck, I EXPLICITLY stated that when comparing Antifa to Nazis, one is LESS worse. I don't get how someone could argue against that. That Antifa, as we know them, are exactly equal to Nazis and white supremacists.

Where have I made this a "black and white issue", especially with a "clear right and a clear wrong"? Please do tell. If it isnt clear enough, I see wrong all over the fing place here. Please don't mischaracterize me as indicating *anything* about Charlottesville as anything anywhere near the general vicinity of right. Not specifically meaning to be a dick, but to be honest I've just about had it with the *constant* mischaracterization of my statements.

I've expressed to you that I respect you, but stating that I feel there is a "clear right and a clear wrong" is just dead fing wrong. Please state explicitly where I have stated there is "a clear right and [] wrong" with either side's conduct or speech here.

The difference between us is that you seemingly comfortable a subjective 'mean speech' morality 'vindicating factor' to violent acts. And I am definitely not. Your right to hold that viewpoint.

As for antifa and Nazis, i can directly equate them in at least one fundamental manner. *Both piles of sh-tbags* think that they subjectively can use unmitigated force against individuals and groups they dont agree with in order to silence those opposing viewpoints. And both the shitbag nazis and the shitbag antifa think that each is somehow 'woke' enough to preempt the sole authority empowered to use force in a legal manner -- i.e. the state in combatting crime and quelling disturbances.

But apparently yelling "K-ke" or "n-gger" in the process is a huge factor in that distinction to some. And obviously, since the nazi shitbags say meaner things, they are far worse.

And that’s why this issue is so fundamentally and toxically stupid. Fine, antifa isn’t as bad as the KKK and the nazi shitbags. Who cares? Since when is being less bad than the Klan and nazi shitbags such a fing major moral accomplishment? This is like comparing the 'who is better' between Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. But apparently in good-think land, that distinction of shitlordliness is of major 'moral' concern, especially when appraising 'blame'.

One who thinks that the antifas are far more superior to the shitlord nazis better hope that at least some shitlord nazis show up at the rest of coming 'social gatherings' (Berkeley for example) that the antifas have a long history of attending and shutting the **** down. (I dont think I need to print that long list I posted a couple of days ago, do I?)