Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The central pivotal political question of our time Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    That is really sad. That you feel equality is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it is the very corner stone of a civilised society. You are calling for freedom of speech but you are not prepared to offer people freedom of expression, be it in religion, sexual orientation or gender. I don't get that.

    Why is freedom of speech more important than freedom of expression?
    What equality is, is a matter of opinion and it's immoral for one person to force their idea of equality on another.

    Freedom of speech doesn't stop freedom of expression. Political correctness is about stopping negative opinions on protected groups. There is no problem with negative opinions. There is a big problem with using force and coercion to stop negative opinions and it is extremely immoral.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by popejp)
    It is suggested that this information may greatly help to heal the political divide in the West today
    vs. "pathological altruism"? Unlikely. Never underestimate the intellectual inflexibility, inconsistency (hypocrisy), dishonesty, and intransigence, never mind cognitive dissonance, of lefty libtards :naughty:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by popejp)
    "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm."
    The point I was making is that what this '(psycho)pathology' tells us about those who display it (fanatical devotion to pseudo-progressivism) is at odds with the notion that they can be reached, thus related characterisations stand little chance of healing the political divide

    they either resort to Ad Hominems or source prejudice
    Indeed, they often resort to condescension, identity politics, and outright bigotry when the chips are down. It's quite ridiculous coming from anyone, let alone purportedly progressive/high minded 'liberals'. Worst kind of hypocrites, in my view, worse still as few can actually see/don't try to excuse the contradiction!

    Many are useful idiots and completely unaware
    Aye, just the last layer of the NWO pyramid: minions of crypto-fascists who likely stand for very little other than power and greed :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    Well there is self-censorship for example someone refusing to debate a point because it was written in the Telegraph, there is social censorship, for example a reluctance to compare left and right attitudes to things like mocking the President (because of what the comparison might reveal, and institutional censorship, for example no-platforming a speaker because he has links to UKIP.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.