The central pivotal political question of our time

OP

Original post by Foo.mp3

vs. "pathological altruism"? Unlikely. Never underestimate the intellectual inflexibility, inconsistency (hypocrisy), dishonesty, and intransigence, never mind cognitive dissonance, of lefty libtards :naughty:

Pathological Altruism is a new theory currently being researched. I quote from Wikipedia:

"Pathological Altruism is a book edited by Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson. It was published on 5 January 2012 by Oxford University Press, and contains 31 academic papers. Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm."[1]"

I never underestimate the delusion of the liberal / left. They tend to use magical thinking for everything and when challenged intellectually they either resort to Ad Hominems or source prejudice, "You must have read that in the church gazette" for example or "that's what the BNP say therefore it must be wrong." They are masters of deception. Many are useful idiots and completely unaware.

Reply 22

How did I guess it would be some nonsense like this as soon as I saw the title.....

Original post by popejp

It is the central argument of our time, the centre of political disagreement, heavily debated in the United States, largely ignored in the United Kingdom in public space.

Because the US, because of the development of its politics in the last few decades, has developed an intensely anti-intellectual attitude on the political right. For the most part the UK, thankfully, has not. So the US spends its time bickering over conspiracy theories and manufactroversies and we get on with more substantial debates.

Liberal left authoritarians account for significant amounts of political violence in the United States today, yet right wing violence accounts for a small fraction of a percentage of political violence.

Yeah, nice try.

Reply 23

OP

Original post by anarchism101

How did I guess it would be some nonsense like this as soon as I saw the title.....

Yeah, nice try.

I see, who shot Republican Steve Scalise and Zach Barth at the Republican Baseball game? A Bernie Sanders supporter. Who runs antifa, responsible for numberous violent attacks against Trump reporters. What ilk is Evette Ferlarca, arrested for inciting violent riots. Who stormed the Berkeley university campus to prevent right wing speakers from speaking? Who took money to cause violence at Trump rallies? Who took part in violent G20 riots, burning shops and businesses. Who took part in the London riots and before that the Brixton riots? Who ran the weather underground planing many tends of bombs and killing many people in the process in the 1970?

Can you really point to the right and say that they planned and orchestrated such attacks?

Reply 24

Original post by popejp

I see, who shot Republican Steve Scalise and Zach Barth at the Republican Baseball game? A Bernie Sanders supporter. Who runs antifa, responsible for numberous violent attacks against Trump reporters. What ilk is Evette Ferlarca, arrested for inciting violent riots. Who stormed the Berkeley university campus to prevent right wing speakers from speaking? Who took money to cause violence at Trump rallies? Who took part in violent G20 riots, burning shops and businesses. Who took part in the London riots and before that the Brixton riots? Who ran the weather underground planing many tends of bombs and killing many people in the process in the 1970?

Can you really point to the right and say that they planned and orchestrated such attacks?

Yes I can, I just cited a link saying exactly that (and mentioning several of the things you mention here, suggesting you didn't bother to read it).

Also, apart from the Scalise shooting (which we have an almost identical* parallel for on the right in the 2011 Giffords shooting) and the Weather Underground (which as you say yourself, was back in the 1970s - a period when the article I cited explicitly said left-wing violence was indeed more prominent), your examples are just vague charges of "riots". Which isn't surprising - invariably the vast majority of examples given by righties of left-wing "violence" will be "Oh, the poor broken windows!" or something similar. Or that the armed-to-the-teeth pro-Trump protesters have only peaceful intentions whereas the counter-protesters with improvised weapons (i.e. who came mostly unarmed) must be the violent ones.

* I say almost identical, because when we take the similar methods of attack out of the equation, Loughner appears to be clearly further to the right than Hodgkinson to the left. Loughner's pre-attack political comments suggest a far-right conspiracy theorist - Hodgkinson's suggested a fairly run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat.

Reply 25

OP

Original post by anarchism101

Yes I can, I just cited a link saying exactly that (and mentioning several of the things you mention here, suggesting you didn't bother to read it).

Also, apart from the Scalise shooting (which we have an almost identical* parallel for on the right in the 2011 Giffords shooting) and the Weather Underground (which as you say yourself, was back in the 1970s - a period when the article I cited explicitly said left-wing violence was indeed more prominent), your examples are just vague charges of "riots". Which isn't surprising - invariably the vast majority of examples given by righties of left-wing "violence" will be "Oh, the poor broken windows!" or something similar. Or that the armed-to-the-teeth pro-Trump protesters have only peaceful intentions whereas the counter-protesters with improvised weapons (i.e. who came mostly unarmed) must be the violent ones.

* I say almost identical, because when we take the similar methods of attack out of the equation, Loughner appears to be clearly further to the right than Hodgkinson to the left. Loughner's pre-attack political comments suggest a far-right conspiracy theorist - Hodgkinson's suggested a fairly run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat.

Ok here is your left wing threats against Trump compilation:

Our eyes don't lie do they?

Reply 26

Original post by popejp

Ok here is your left wing threats against Trump compilation:

Our eyes don't lie do they?

Can't tell if serious.....

Predictably as the title uses "liberal" rather than "left-wing", most of those featured aren't actually that left-wing, just generic liberals and centrists - it even bizarrely includes Mickey Rourke, whose pro-GOP sympathies have been known for years (he endorsed Ben Carson in the 2016 primaries). I'm really not sure what Obama, Kaine or Lynch said that's supposed to remotely sound threatening.

Reply 27

Original post by popejp

source prejudice

Speaking as a historian, "source prejudice" is half of how we know how to judge any account of events. Otherwise we're just blindly accepting everything we read.

Reply 28

OP

Original post by anarchism101

Can't tell if serious.....

Predictably as the title uses "liberal" rather than "left-wing", most of those featured aren't actually that left-wing, just generic liberals and centrists - it even bizarrely includes Mickey Rourke, whose pro-GOP sympathies have been known for years (he endorsed Ben Carson in the 2016 primaries). I'm really not sure what Obama, Kaine or Lynch said that's supposed to remotely sound threatening.

A left wing fascist superstructure is perpetuating this left wing violence / and threats through the use of double standards, the double standards that the left typically use which is to allow something if it's in their favour and criticise it if it's out of their favour.

Those same comments would never have been toledated by the superstructure against Obama.

Reply 29

OP

Original post by anarchism101

Speaking as a historian, "source prejudice" is half of how we know how to judge any account of events. Otherwise we're just blindly accepting everything we read.

The source prejudice of the left is very apparent. If someone makes a claim that doesn't agree with their belief system and shows then a photo and witness statement they will say where did you see that. Oh the Telegraph, that's the Church Gazette and they will then refer to the Guardian which conveniently leaves out the inconvenient bits of the story like the fact that the perpetrators of a certain type of crime are largely a minority group, that's an example of something that doesn't agree with their belief system. It's very blatant self-censorship and attempted censorship of others.

Reply 30

Original post by popejp

A left wing fascist superstructure is perpetuating this left wing violence / and threats through the use of double standards, the double standards that the left typically use which is to allow something if it's in their favour and criticise it if it's out of their favour.

Those same comments would never have been toledated by the superstructure against Obama.

About that. And of course let's not forget Trump himself's call for a "march on Washington" to forcibly overthrow Obama after the 2012 election, ironically on the basis that Obama had supposedly won the electoral college but not popular vote (before all the Obama votes from the West Coast poured in, of course).

Also, as tangental points:
- It's a bit bizarre to argue that Kathy Griffin's stunt was "tolerated", given it got her fired from her job and her tour cancelled.
- Madonna's comment about the "thought of blowing up the White House" was raised precisely so she could repudiate it, which she does in the very next sentence - conveniently cut out by both videos you posted.

Furthermore, rather than ever responding directly to a point, you're just jumping on to some other loosely-related thing. You've moved from the question of left-wing violence (i.e. real actual physical violence) to the question of threats against Trump - the "left-wing" nature of the perpetrators of supposed threats seemingly being assumed largely simply from their being anti-Trump.

Reply 31

Original post by popejp

The source prejudice of the left is very apparent. If someone makes a claim that doesn't agree with their belief system and shows then a photo and witness statement they will say where did you see that. Oh the Telegraph, that's the Church Gazette

I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to the Telegraph as the "Church Gazette".

For the record I wouldn't dismiss the Telegraph as a source, it's got standards even if I find a lot of what it says to be quite silly. Infowars, Breitbart or random YouTube talking heads are a different question.

It's very blatant self-censorship and attempted censorship of others.

You don't seem to understand the concept of censorship. If someone's argument is ridiculed or dismissed because it rests on a particular source, perceived to be unreliable, that is not censorship. Nothing prevented them from pushing the argument.

Reply 32